United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Incline Management Plan Final Environmental Assessment
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Washoe County, Nevada June 2018
For more information, contact: Ashley Sibr Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Dr. South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 Phone: (530) 543-2615 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
To File an Employment Complaint
If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.
To File a Program Complaint
If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].
Persons with Disabilities
Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... ii Acronyms...... iv Project Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Document Structure ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 2 1.3 Proposed Action Summary ...... 6 1.4 Location ...... 7 1.5 Purpose and Need for Action and Desired Condition ...... 7 1.6 Decision Framework...... 8 1.7 Public Involvement ...... 9 1.8 Issues ...... 9 1.9 Laws, Regulations, and Policies ...... 10 1.10 Permits and Coordination ...... 13 Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...... 14 2.1 No Action – Alternative 1 ...... 14 2.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2 ...... 14 2.3 Changes from Scoping Comments ...... 20 2.4 Design Features ...... 22 2.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences ...... 32 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences ...... 34 3.0 Assumptions ...... 34 3.1 Forest Plan Amendment ...... 35 3.2 Recreation Resources ...... 43 3.3 Vegetation Resources ...... 48 3.4 Hydrology and Soils ...... 51 3.5 Heritage Resources ...... 55 3.6 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants...... 57 3.7 Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 63 3.8 Aquatic Wildlife Resources...... 68 3.9 Scenic Resources ...... 75 Chapter 4 – Coordination and Consultation ...... 79 4.1 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Interdisciplinary Team ...... 79 4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 79 4.3 Tribal Coordination...... 79 4.4 Individuals ...... 80 4.5 Organizations ...... 81 Appendix A: Hydrology, Soil and Water Protection BMPS ...... 83 Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Incline Management Plan Project ...... 83 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan ...... 86 Management Requirements for Invasive Plants of Management Concern ...... 86 Preferred Invasive Plant Treatment Methods ...... 88 Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment ii Species Not Currently Known on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit ...... 93 Species Managed on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, But Not Always Treated .. 94 Aquatic Invasive Plants: ...... 95 Summary of All Approved Treatment Methods under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project ...... 95 Herbicides Analyzed for Use on LTBMU under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project ...... 97 Resource Protection Measures for All Treatment Methods under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project ...... 97 Appendix C: Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects ...... 103 Past Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 103 Present and Ongoing Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 103 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 103 Appendix D: Suitable Uses by Management Area in the Forest Plan ...... 104
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment iii
Acronyms Acronym Definition ABA Architectural Barriers Act BA/BE Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation BEIG Built Environment Image Guide BMPs Best Management Rractices BMPEP Best Management Practice Evaluation Program Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAR Critical Aquatic Refuge CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CLM California Land Management CO Carbon Monoxide CWA Clean Water Act CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System DBH Diameter at Breast Height DOE Determination of Eligibility DVT Daily Vehicle Trips EA Environmental Assessment EIP Environmental Improvement Program EIS Environmental Impact Statement ERA Equivalent Roaded Acres ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact Forest plan Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan Forest Service USDA Forest Service FSORAG Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guideline GFA Gross Floor Area GHGs Greenhouse Gasses GIS Geographic Information System HUC Hydrologic Unit Code LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LOP Limited Operating Period LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LRWQCB Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board LTBMU Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit MIS Management Indicator Species MIS Report Management Indicator Species for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit ND Neighborhood Development NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment iv
Acronym Definition NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NOx Nitrous Oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHV Off-highway Vehicle PAC Protected Activity Center PAOT Persons At One Time PCT Pacific Crest Trail PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter RCA Riparian Conservation Area RCOs Riparian Conservation Objectives ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ROW Right-of-Way SEZ Stream Environment Zone SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SNF MIS 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide South Shore Project South Shore Fuel Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project TEPCS Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate Species TESP Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive or Proposed TES Threatened and Endangered Species TMPO Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Agency TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency TRT Tahoe Rim Trail USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VQO Visual Quality Objective
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment v
Project Summary The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) acquired 774 acres of land in Incline Village, Nevada in 2011 in order to help the Forest Service reach its goal of protecting water quality and natural resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin (see Figure 1). The land was previously occupied by structures, but all structures were removed before the Forest Service took ownership of the property. Also included on the property was a dam that formed the Incline Lake. The lake was drained before the Forest Service took possession. The Forest Service went through the planning and environmental documentation process related to the dam, with a final decision to remove the dam and restore the lakebed area in 2015 (Incline Lake Dam Project, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, January 2015). The land was placed in the general conservation management area during the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan (forest plan) revision in 2016. The LTBMU has since been asked by the public to consider changing the general conservation management area designation, and the land has since been determined appropriate for consideration under the backcountry management area designation.
The LTBMU is proposing to amend the forest plan to designate approximately 400 acres of the project area as backcountry management area. The remainder of the site would remain designated as general conservation (general forest). No change to the management area description in the forest plan is proposed; only the geographic distribution of the land designated as backcountry management area within the project area is proposed to change.
The LTBMU is also proposing to undertake a series of project-specific management actions related to roads and trails projects, hydrology and habitat restoration activities, and vegetation management activities (see Figure 2).
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Document Structure
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (USFS) has prepared this draft environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed action as well as the no-action alternative. The document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, “Introduction,” includes information on the structure of the environmental assessment, background of the project, overview of the existing condition, the desired conditions, the purpose of and need for action, summary of the proposed action, applicable management direction, and the decision framework. This chapter also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal through public involvement, describes
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 1
the issues identified by the public, and summarizes laws, regulations, and policies that are applicable to the project. • Chapter 2, “Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action,” provides descriptions of the no- action alternative and the Forest Service’s proposed action. Site maps of the project area are included. Chapter 2 also summarizes the effects of the no-action alternative and the proposed action. • Chapter 3, “Environmental Consequences,” presents an overview of the analysis, the existing conditions, and the environmental effects of implementing the alternatives. The effects of the no-action alternative are described first to provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison with the proposed action. • Chapter 4, “Consultation and Coordination,” provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this document. • The appendices include water quality protection best management practices, invasive plants information, projects considered for cumulative effects, and suitable uses by Forest Plan management area. Additional documentation may be found in the project record located at the forest supervisor’s office in South Lake Tahoe, CA, and is available upon request in accordance with 40CFR 1506.6(f) and 40 CFR 1502.21.
1.2 Background
The 774-acre property was purchased by the Forest Service as part of a larger land acquisition to be managed consistent with Forest Service stewardship goals and policies. The parcel was part of a private inholding that was developed with an access road, utilities, multiple dwellings, a dam, and other small outbuildings. Acquisition proceedings started in 2008 and were finalized in December 2011.
All buildings were removed from the property prior to the acquisition. As a part of the acquisition, a site investigation and assessment of the existing dam and spillway were commissioned. The results of the site assessment completed prior to the acquisition (Black Eagle Consulting, 2008) indicated that the existing dam and spillway (see Figure 1) did not meet Federal, state or local standards for a high hazard dam. It was also determined that the dam could liquefy during a seismic event, with the nearest fault (Incline Village fault) about 1,000 feet from the former lake.
Subsequently, the lake (which was approximately 18-20 acres) was drained and the outflow pipe was opened so that it would not refill prior to completion of the Forest Service acquisition. Water does occasionally accumulate behind the dam after large snow events; however, water currently flows freely through the outflow pipe. It was decided that before long-term planning could begin for the remainder of the property, the hazards associated with the dam and spillway needed to be addressed.
In 2012, the LTBMU began a project to address the hazards associated with the dam. The planning process took three years, and in January of 2015, the Forest Supervisor decided that the dam and spillway would be removed and the area restored to reflect conditions that existed
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 2
prior to dam construction (Incline Lake Dam Project, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, January 2015).
That decision has not yet been implemented, but with that decision made, the LTBMU can now move ahead with planning for the future use of these parcels of land. This project will provide forest plan-level direction, as well as project-level direction for the acquisition parcels and adjacent lands that are affected by the land management decisions made within the acquisition area.
The project area is bisected by State Road 431 (Mt. Rose highway). The only improvements in the project area to the east of SR431 are the old SR431 roadway alignment (which is under fee ownership by Nevada Department of Transportation [NDOT]), an existing non-system road that runs adjacent to old SR431, and an existing non-system trail (Tyrolian Downhill). All other on- site improvements are to the west of SR431.
Currently, there are several trails that access this portion of the project area for dispersed recreation (hiking, dog walking, mountain biking). There is one existing access road, which is used for administrative access to the dam. It is about 1.2 miles long and is gated at the entrance. One existing National Forest System (NFS) trail (18E17) leaves from the dam access road and heads west into the Mt. Rose Wilderness area. The trails cross sensitive habitats and wet areas in some locations.
The closest developed campground is approximately 1.5 miles away at Mt. Rose campground. The nearest developed day use recreation facility is half a mile away at the Mt. Rose Summit Interpretive Site.
Third Creek and various perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels are located in the project area. Multiple fens, meadows, groundwater seeps, and other sensitive botanical areas are dispersed throughout the site. Although the dam outflow pipe is permanently open, in high snowfall years, Incline Lake continues to hold water until spring flows begin to slow. When standing water is not present, the Incline Lake footprint becomes a wet meadow habitat.
There is a diversion from Third Creek called the Franktown Ditch, which takes water through a ditch and into Washoe Valley. The Franktown Irrigation District administers and is responsible for maintenance of the irrigation ditch. The Forest Service maintains multiple water rights on the site. Some underground utilities still remain from the previously-removed structures. The Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID) acquired a 5.4-acre inholding within the acquisition (APN 048-140-03). This parcel can be accessed through the NDOT right-of-way. Portions of the old Mt. Rose highway road alignment are located on the IVGID parcel. IVGID has also proposed use of portions of NFS lands located on the HTNF for use as a septic field in the future. This project will not address the use of NFS lands for that purpose, other than to clarify that the actions taken in this project will not preclude that future use. The existing off-highway parking area is located entirely on NDOT right-of-way and IVGID property, and is not located on National Forest land.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 3
The Incline Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project overlaps with the project area and includes sawlog and biomass removal, chipping and masticating of slash and brush, hand and mechanical thinning of brush and trees, both inside and outside of defined SEZs, cutting, chipping, and removing infested, diseased, and dead standing and down trees and logs, prescribed pile and under-burning after vegetation treatments. Fuels treatment throughout the project area is ongoing.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 4
Figure 1. Map of the Incline Acquisition Parcels Area
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 5
1.3 Proposed Action Summary
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit acquired 774 acres of land in Incline Village, Nevada in 2011 in order to help the Forest Service reach its goal of protecting water quality and natural resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin (see Figure 1). The land was previously occupied by structures, but all structures were removed before the Forest Service took ownership of the property.
Also included on the property was a dam that formed the Incline Lake. The lake was drained before the Forest Service took possession. The Forest Service went through the planning and environmental documentation process related to the dam, with a final decision to remove the dam and restore the lake bed area in 2015 (Incline Lake Dam Project, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, January 2015).
The land was placed in the general conservation management area during the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan (forest plan) revision in 2016. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has since been asked by the public to consider changing the general conservation management area designation, and the land has since been determined appropriate for consideration under the backcountry management area designation. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit is proposing to amend the forest plan to designate approximately 400 acres of the project area as backcountry management area.
The need to amend and change the forest plan is to designate approximately 400 acres of the project area (west of Third Creek) as the backcountry management area because we believe it would result in benefits to water quality, habitat, scenery, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The remainder of the site would remain designated as general conservation (general forest). No change to the management area description in the forest plan is proposed; only the geographic distribution of the land designated as backcountry management area within the project area is proposed to change. The following substantive requirements are related to the amendment: 36CFR 219.8 (a3i) Riparian Areas sustainability, and 36 CFR 219.10 (a [1, 6, and 10]) Integrated resource management for multiple use. The plan amendment will be subject to the objection procedures outlined in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit is also proposing to undertake a series of project- specific management actions related to roads and trails projects, hydrology and habitat restoration activities, and vegetation management activities (see Figure 2). Project-specific roads and trails proposals include adopting and rerouting of existing trails; replacing and/or upgrading road and trail stream crossings; installing Best Management Practices (BMPs), interpretive and wayfinding signs; creating a new trail near the former Incline Lake bed, and resource protection barriers. Restoration activities would include removing the dam diversion ditch that connects Third Creek to the former Incline Lake bed; restoring stream channels and aquatic species habitat throughout the area; revegetating with native vegetation species areas that are degraded; restoring damage to wetlands, which resulted from water diversion activities; repairing erosion along the Franktown Ditch; developing a plan for future white bark
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 6
pine management; and reducing tree density in meadow and wetland areas through forest thinning and restoration of Aspen communities.
A more detailed description of the proposed action can be found in chapter 2 of this environmental assessment.
1.4 Location
This project is located off of State Route 431 in Washoe County, Nevada near Tahoe Meadows (see Figure 1). The project area is approximately 1083 acres of National Forest System (NFS) Lands administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit) that includes part of an approximately 774 acre parcel that was acquired by the Forest Service in 2011. The acquisition consists of Assessor Parcel Numbers 048-140-04 and 048-042- 03, at an elevation of approximately 8,300 feet. Approximately 77 acres of the 774 acre parcel are administered by the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (HTNF) and the remainder is administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The portion of the parcel administered by the HTNF is not included in the project area. The project area includes lands administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit that are outside of the acquisition property, but adjacent to the property (see Figure 2 for the project area boundary).
1.5 Purpose and Need for Action and Desired Condition
The purpose of the project is to incorporate the land acquired in 2011 into the forest plan and assign it to the appropriate management area. The purpose of incorporating this land into the forest plan is to provide direction as to the desired future condition and guide management of this property. The purpose of this planning effort is also to plan project-specific activities to bring the land up to NFS standards for stream and habitat management, dispersed recreation management, and road and trails standards.
There is a need to: • Align the Forest Plan land management area designation of the portion of the project west of Third Creek to more closely match the existing and desired future allowable uses in that area. • Provide appropriate and sustainable access for dispersed recreation activities, including roads and trails. • Address the impact from trails that pass directly through sensitive ecosystems, failing boardwalks over streams, abandoned infrastructure, and generally degraded trails that detract from the overall visual experience and dispersed recreation opportunity on the site. • Protect and restore the unique and sensitive ecosystems on the site, including habitat for TEPCS species and aquatic and botanical sensitive species in the streams, fens, aspen stands, and meadow ecosystems.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 7
o Address the head cut issues in Third Creek, erosion on the Franktown Ditch, and the impact of the diversion ditch that changes the groundwater and surface water distribution onsite. o Increase the resiliency of the watershed to thunderstorm flashfloods that have the power to generate sediment that can be transported all the way to Lake Tahoe. o Protect and improve the water quality of the streams that flow through the site and into Lake Tahoe. o Improve the resiliency and perpetuation of aspen and meadow stands in which conifer encroachment has reduced the health and vigor of the stands. • Increase the resiliency of whitebark pine in the project area to whitebark pine blister rust and other diseases and insects. • Prevent the spread of invasive species on the site. • Improve the resiliency of the forests on the site to withstand a stand-replacing event such as a catastrophic wildfire, drought, insect infestation, or disease. Desired Conditions: • The acquired parcels and surrounding areas are assigned a Forest Plan management area designation that is appropriate for the existing and desired future use and resource protection of the area and managed accordingly. • Sustainable access to the area is established for dispersed recreation.
o Connections to the existing managed trail system are made to create usable routes and loop opportunities.
o Connections to existing parking areas are provided for dispersed recreation access. o The established trails system protects the sensitive habitat in the area and complements the habitat restoration activities. • Stream restoration is completed to restore the hydrologic connectivity of the groundwater, stream, and meadow complexes, as well as to provide habitat for native aquatic species. • Habitat restoration for sensitive species is completed throughout the project area. • Habitat, ecosystems, and forests are resilient to a changing climate and habitat stressors.
1.6 Decision Framework
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit forest supervisor would decide: 1. Whether or not to implement the project activities as described in the proposed action. 2. Whether or not to amend the forest plan to reallocate 400 acres in the project area from general conservation to backcountry designation. 3. Whether or not a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) can be supported by the environmental analysis contained in this environmental assessment.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 8
1.7 Public Involvement
The project was listed on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit’s “Schedule of Proposed Actions” on January 2, 2018. A scoping letter was mailed or emailed to stakeholders and interested parties on November 29, 2017. A copy of the scoping letter and proposed action were posted on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit website on the same day. A Forest Service news release was distributed to local media outlets summarizing the proposed action and asking for public input on the proposed action during the NEPA scoping period. A legal notice of the availability of the project for public comment and the proposed forest plan amendment scoping requirements was posted in the newspaper of record, the Tahoe Daily Tribune, on November 29, 2017. On December 5, 2017, both the Tahoe Daily Tribune and the Sierra Sun newspaper posted notice of the availability of the project for public comment on their website. On December 12, 2017, a Forest Service news release was distributed to local media outlets advertising a public open house meeting to be held on December 21, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Lake Tahoe News posted an article on their website advertising the public meeting. The Incline Village General Improvement District posted notice of the meeting on their website and distributed the notice through the NextDoor app. The public open house meeting was held on December 21 at The Chateau, 955 Fairway Blvd., Incline Village, NV, 89451. A number of individuals provided written comments during the meeting. Additional comments were received electronically and via U.S. mail.
A draft Environmental Assessment was prepared and circulated for public comment from April 27, 2018 to May 29, 2017. A legal notice in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on April 27, 2018 started the 30 day legal comment period. Interested parties, including those that commented during the scoping period, were notified that the comment period was open and the documents were available on the LTBMU website. In addition the LTBMU sent out a press release on April 27, 2018 announcing the comment period. Three comment letters were received (see Response to Comments in the Decision Notice [DN] Appendix A).
1.8 Issues
Based on comments received during the scoping period a number of issues were identified that led to changes in the proposed action, including:
• Proposed blocking or decommissioning of the dirt road adjacent to NDOT’s old SR431 (also known as the Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company Road and identified as 26WA9544 by the Nevada SHPO) might obliterate a historic feature. This feature is considered a historic property by the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office. • Concern that the proposed motorized use of the dam access road under the terms of a special use permit would alter the character of the site, cause disruption to people walking on the access road, and bring more people into the site. • Concern with the location of the proposed trail loop segment near the Incline Lake footprint and its impact on sensitive soils and habitats.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 9
• Concern that the proposed decommissioning of a short trail segment would lead to disconnected access through the site or the creation of user-created trails. The proposed action has been refined based on scoping and other internal input and external partner input. An alternative to the proposed action was not developed because concerns were able to be resolved in the refinement of the proposed action and the project design features. A summary of the changes from the proposed action circulated for input during NEPA scoping is included in Section 2.3 of this environmental assessment. The project record contains the actual responses received during scoping, as well as a scoping summary report, which has been summarized here and in Section 2.3.
1.9 Laws, Regulations, and Policies
All resource management activities described and proposed in this document would be consistent with applicable Federal law and regulations, Forest Service policies, and applicable provisions of state law. The major applicable laws are as follows:
National Forest Management Act
The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Plan was approved in 2016 as required by this act. The forest plan provides guidance for all natural resource management activities. The NFMA requires that all projects and activities be consistent with the forest plan. The forest plan has been reviewed in consideration of this project, and the documentation of the forest plan consistency is in the project record.
All projects and activities authorized by the Forest Service must be consistent with applicable plan components of the forest plan in accordance with 36 CFR 219.15 (d). If a project or activity would not be consistent with forest plan direction, the responsible official has the following options under the 2012 Planning Rule, which applies to the 2016 LTBMU Forest Plan:
1. To modify the proposal so that the project or activity will be consistent with the plan; 2. To reject the proposal; or 3. To amend the plan so that the project or activity is consistent with the plan as amended. The amendment may be limited to apply only to the project or activity and may be adopted at the same time as the approval of the project or activity via project-specific environmental analysis and public involvement as described in 36 CFR 219.13.
The proposed forest plan amendment and its compliance with 36 CFR 219.13 is described in Chapter 3 of this EA and in the project record.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 10
Endangered Species Act
In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of endangered and threatened species that may be affected by projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Area was reviewed (March 16, 2018).
The effects on those species are analyzed in the BA/BE (Project Record). Informal consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was conducted for this project. The project record contains the letter of concurrence from Carolyn Swed, Field Supervisor of the Reno Fish and Wildlife Service Office, received on May 10, 2018.
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of a project on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of the NHPA (Public Law 89.665, as amended) also requires Federal agencies to afford the State Historic Preservation Officer a reasonable opportunity to comment. This project is consistent with the Programmatic Agreement between the Forest Service Region 5 and the Historic Preservation Officers of California and Nevada. (Project Record).
Clean Water Act (Public Law 92–500)
All Federal agencies must comply with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which regulates forest management activities near Federal waters and riparian areas. The design features and best management practices (Appendix A) associated with the proposed action ensure that the terms of the CWA are met, primarily prevention of pollution caused by erosion and sedimentation. Appropriate permits will be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers if needed for the in-stream work in Third Creek.
Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)
Executive Order 12898 requires that all Federal actions consider potentially disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities, especially if adverse effects on environmental or human health conditions are identified. Adverse environmental or human health conditions created by the proposed action would not affect any minority or low-income neighborhood disproportionately.
Reviewing the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity in relationship to non- Federal land, there is no evidence to suggest that any minority or low-income neighborhood would be affected disproportionately. Conversely, there is no evidence that any individual, group, or portion of the community would benefit unequally from the proposed action.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 11
Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999
This environmental assessment covers botanical resources and invasive plants. An Invasive Plant Risk Assessment has been prepared (Project Record). The project’s design features are designed to minimize risk of new invasive plant introductions.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16 USC 703-712)
The original 1918 statute implemented the 1916 Convention between the United States and Great Britain (for Canada) for the protection of migratory birds. Later amendments implemented treaties between the United States and Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union (now Russia). Specific provisions in the statute include the establishment of a Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird." Because forest lands provide a substantial portion of breeding habitat, land management activities within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit can have an impact on local populations.
A Migratory Bird Report (Project Record) has been prepared for this project which fulfills the requirements of this act and Executive Order 13186.
Architectural Barriers Act
The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) requires that facilities designed, built, altered, or leased with funds supplied by the United States Federal government be accessible to the public. The ABA provides uniform standards for the design, construction, and alteration of buildings so that persons with disabilities will have ready access to and use of them. These standards are incorporated into the design of this proposed action in order to meet the ABA.
Special Area Designations
There are no Special Area Designations within the project area.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)
Any ground-disturbing project activities (greater than three cubic yards of soil) that occur between October 15 and May 1 will require a grading exemption from TRPA. An initial environmental checklist for determination of environmental impact was submitted and approved by TRPA in May 2018. In addition, any required permits will be obtained from TRPA prior to project implementation. Project documents have been shared and reviewed by TRPA..
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 12
1.10 Permits and Coordination
Any ground-disturbing project activities (greater than three cubic yards of soil) that occur between October 15 and May 1 will require a grading exemption from TRPA. In addition, any required permits will be obtained from TRPA prior to project implementation. Project documents have been shared and reviewed by TRPA. Appropriate permits will be obtained with Departments of Transportation (DOT) prior to project activity affecting the right-of-way along DOT-managed highways. Appropriate permits will be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers if needed for the in-stream work in Third Creek.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 13 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 2.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative, current conditions and management would persist. The project area would remain categorized as general conservation (general forest). The trails would continue to exist in their current condition without the ability of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to maintain or upgrade them. The existing head cuts would continue to degrade/impact the hydrology and aquatic habitat in Third Creek. The diversion ditch would continue to impact the hydrology of the area. No additional forest health treatments or meadow restoration would be conducted on the site.
2.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
The sections below describe the proposed action. See Figure 2 for a map of the proposed action.
2.2.1 Forest Plan Amendment
Actions
• Amend the LTBMU 2016 Forest Plan under the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219.13) to change the approximately 400 acres of the project area (west of Third Creek) from general conservation to backcountry management area designation. See Figure 2 for a map of the geographic distribution of the proposed backcountry area.
o Update the Map - 01 Management Areas to reflect the updated backcountry designation.
o Update the map inset included in the backcountry management area description on page 76 to reflect the updated backcountry designation.
o Update the map inset included in the general conservation management area description on page 78 to reflect the change from general conservation to backcountry.
o No changes to the backcountry management area definition (Section 2.3.3, 2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, page 76) and suitable uses and management practices (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP Table 4, page 81) described in the forest plan are proposed, only the geographic distribution of the management area within the project area. No changes to any of the desired conditions, strategies, or design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the existing forest plan are proposed.
o The remainder of the project area would remain designated as general conservation (general forest).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 14 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Performance Measures
• Land management planning meets forest plan amendment guidelines (36 CFR 219.13). • The backcountry management area designation meets the management concept of natural landscapes, dispersed recreation use, and limited management, as described in Section 2.3.3 Backcountry Management Area of the 2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan.
2.2.2 Roads and Trails
Actions
• Adopt approximately 5 miles of existing non-motorized trails (labeled A on Figure 2). All of the trails that are proposed for adoption will be assessed for their impact on sensitive resources and rerouted or upgraded as described below. • Reroute existing non-motorized trails that are causing resource damage or upgrade (for example, elevate, replace with boardwalk) portions of the trails within sensitive areas throughout the project area. • Block access to the approximately 1 mile of dirt road adjacent to NDOT old SR431 (also known as the Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company Road and identified as 26WA9544 by the Nevada SHPO). Blocked access may include the installation of a gate or other means such as boulders to prevent vehicular entry (labeled B on Figure 2). • Decommission or block access to the 0.2 miles of road that connects the highway to 18E40 (labeled B on Figure 2). • Adopt 1.25 miles of existing motorized road (the dam access road), including the larger turn- around area near the dam (labeled C on Figure 2). The road will be maintained at an Objective Maintenance Level 3 for administrative access only with a gate at the entrance. The road would remain non-motorized to public access. • Replace or upgrade route crossings of streams and wet areas within the project area to meet current Best Management Practice (BMP) direction. • Install permanent BMPs along the dam access road and turn-around area. The BMPs would include but not be limited to installation of infiltration basins, re-contouring and repaving of the vehicular travel areas to ensure proper drainage of storm water, or other means of directing and infiltrating storm water. • Install interpretive and wayfinding signage. • Construct a new non-motorized trail to create a universally accessible loop with the dam access road that overlooks the former lake bed area (labeled D on Figure 2). • Install resource protection barriers (natural or fenced) where needed to protect sensitive habitat. Natural barriers would include willows or other vegetation screening, downed logs, boulders, or other natural materials.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 15 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Performance Measures
• Trail maintenance, construction, and decommissioning activities are conducted in accordance with the guidelines, procedures and standards published in FSH 2309.18 “Trails Management Handbook” (October 2008) and EM-7720-103 “Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Trails” (October 2014). • Road maintenance and construction activities are conducted in accordance with the guidelines, procedures and standards published in FSH 7709.58 “Transportation System Maintenance Handbook”, and FSH 7709.56 “Road Preconstruction Handbook”. • Permanent BMPs are consistent with Forest Service and TRPA standards. • The bottom of crossing structure(s) is contiguous with surrounding substrate in elevation and material. • Up to bankfull flow conditions1, the crossing structure(s) maintain function as a connected water body. • Crossings do not inhibit natural flow and aquatic organism passage. • Above bankfull flow, the crossing would not cause accelerated channel erosion. • Road and trail maintenance, construction, or decommissioning activities will not permanently reduce or degrade sensitive plant habitat. • All interpretive and wayfinding signage meets Forest Service universal accessibility guidelines. • Resource protection barriers would discourage pedestrian access to sensitive habitat, but would be localized and would not restrict access to large portions of the site. • The new trail overlooking the former lake bed will be located outside of sensitive soils and sensitive plant habitats.
2.2.3 Hydrology and Habitat Restoration Activities
Actions
• Obliterate the dam diversion ditch that connects Third Creek to the former Inline Lake bed (labeled E on Figure 2). • Restore channel morphology, including removal of head cutting and repair of erosion, and in-stream channels where needed throughout the project area. Place logs and native materials where necessary for channel stabilization. • Restore suitable habitat for native aquatic species in Third Creek. • Re-vegetate areas with degraded native vegetation using native vegetation species. • Restore damage to fens which resulted from diversion activities.
1 Bankfull flow conditions: Bankfull flows are those that are predicted to occur at a range of 1.5 to 2 year recurrent interval, and are the volume at which stream channel flows begin to overtop channel banks into the adjacent floodplain.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 16 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
• Repair erosion along the slope south of the Franktown Ditch2.
Performance Measures
• Through head cut repair, channel down-cutting would be minimized and natural geomorphic functions such as channel aggradation and floodplain connectivity would be promoted. • Log placement and placement of native materials raise the channel or meadow surface elevation back to a level that promotes natural hydrologic function. • Log placement and placement of native materials creates natural patterns of sediment scour and deposition. • Logs would be placed in such a way that flow is deflected away from banks that are at risk of erosion. • Stream and fen restoration activities meet current best management practices (BMPs) for design of restoration activities. • Habitat for sensitive botanical and aquatic species throughout the project area is restored. • The Third Creek ditch diversion is re-contoured to allow for natural flow of surface water. • Aquatic organisms would be able to move up Third Creek until natural topography prevents further travel upstream and would be consistent with the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout recovery plan.
2.2.4 Vegetation Management
Actions
• Conduct whitebark pine (WBP) management.
o Thinning/Burning – Reduce competing trees to increase vigor of surviving trees and help prevent mountain pine beetle attacks.
o Pruning – Implement sanitation pruning on trees that have whitebark pine rust cankers on branches within 6 inches of the stem. The pruning will prolong the life of the existing trees and remove infection before it reaches the main stem, and potentially limit the spread of whitebark pine rust to other areas.
o Regeneration – Create openings to allow for natural regeneration of whitebark through reduction of competition from shade-tolerant tree species. Active regeneration also may occur through planting collected seeds or seedlings grown from nursery sites.
o Seed/Cone Collection – Collect seeds for future genetic testing and planting. Seed to be used for both growing seedlings (in situ and nursery grown) in areas where existing and future regeneration of WBP has been disturbed and genetic diversity has been lost. • Reduce conifer and upland species invasion of meadow and fen ecosystems through thinning activities.
2 The Franktown Ditch is operated and managed by the Franktown Irrigation District. The repair of erosion proposed in this action would be located outside of the areas of responsibility of the Franktown Irrigation District.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 17 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
• Conduct vegetation treatments designed to restore aspen communities, which may include (1) conifer removal to reduce or eliminate conifer encroachment in aspen stands, (2) aspen removal to promote root stimulation and stand regeneration, (3) aspen root separation, and/or (4) prescribed fire. • Create openings approximately 1/10 of an acre in size in pockets of dead and dying whitebark pine or other tree species in order to recruit healthy trees by planting or allowing natural regeneration to occur.
Performance Measures
• Snags and coarse woody debris are retained for wildlife and aquatic resources. • Prescribed fire and thinning activities meet all forest plan and TRPA guidelines for these activities, including limitations on areas to be thinned by mechanical means. • Residual canopy cover in areas of thinning or prescribed fire would range between 30 and 40 percent. • Stumps are cut within a maximum height of approximately six inches measured from the uphill side of the stump where practicable. Where feasible, within 25 feet of recreation improvements, facilities and NFS roads and trails stumps will be flush-cut level with the ground. Vegetation treatments may extend beyond the perimeter of an aspen stand up to (1) 1½ times the height of aspen trees in the stand (the maximum extent of lateral aspen roots), (2) the distance required to prevent remaining, adjacent conifers from shading the aspen stand and suppressing aspen regeneration, or (3) up to 100 feet (to conduct treatments or process treatment by-products), whichever is greater. • WBP removal for management development focuses on the unhealthy trees and avoid the removal of healthy whitebark pine where possible.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 18 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Figure 2. Proposed Action Project Area Map
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 19 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
2.3 Changes from Scoping Comments
Changes to the proposed action between the scoping period and draft environmental assessment were incorporated based on input received: • The action associated with the dirt road adjacent to NDOT old SR431 (also known as the Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company Road and identified as 26WA9544 by the Nevada SHPO) was revised to only including blocking access of the roadway. The option to decommission the roadway was removed from the proposal to preserve the historic feature. • The proposed motorized access on the dam access road was removed from the project. No roads or trails within the project area are considered for motorized access in the revised proposed action (other than for administrative use) and therefore the travel management component of the proposed action (which was previously included in order to meet the requirements of 36 CFR 212 Subpart A — Administration of the Forest Transportation System, and Subpart B - Designation of Roads, Trails and Areas for Motor Vehicle Use) was removed from the project as well. • The proposed action was revised to more clearly identify the location of the proposed loop trail near the Incline Lake area and clarified to indicate that the trail would connect to the dam access road and be located outside of sensitive soils and sensitive habitats. • A short trail segment was proposed for decommissioning in the original proposed action. The proposed action was revised to adopt this trail into the NFS in order to prevent the creation of user-created trails in the area and to maintain trail connectivity in the area. • The portion of the project area (77 acres) that was located on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest was removed from the project area because no substantive actions were identified during scoping that required that portion of the project area remain in the proposed action. Comments were received that did not prompt changes to the proposed action or the creation of an additional alternative, but did lead to clarifications of the proposed action or edits/additions to the project design features. Complete scoping comments and a scoping summary document can be found in the project record.
2.3.1 Alternatives Considered But Not In Further Detail
Comments were received that included requests for additional facilities or were beyond the scope of the proposed project. These issues were not considered in further detail. A summary of these issues is below in Table 1.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 20 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Table 1. Reasons for Not Considering Issues/Alternatives Further
Issue Reason for Not Considering the Issue/Alternative Further A commenter requested that the issue of This comment is outside the scope of this project. The Incline Lake the Incline Dam be revisited, including Dam Project DN/FONSI documents the decision by the Forest rebuilding of the dam and refilling of Supervisor to remove the high hazard dam and restore the Incline Lake for recreational purposes. meadow/fen ecosystem in the lake bed area. Comments were received requesting All winter use of the site is being analyzed under the Winter various winter recreation amenities, Recreation and Travel Management Plan (OSVUM) that is currently including grooming for cross country ski in the project development phase. The actions in this project do not routes and the inclusion of a Cross preclude grooming on the site. Any proposed IVGID facility would Country Ski Center on the Incline be on IVGID-owned land and would not be affected by this action. Village General Improvement District property in the project area. Comments related to the proposed The backcountry management area designation definition allows for backcountry designation of the area west over-snow-vehicle use where designated on the over-snow vehicle of Third Creek included requesting that use map (OSVUM). The areas allowed to be open to over-snow motorized use (specifically by over-snow vehicle use are being analyzed in the Winter Recreation and Travel vehicles) be precluded from the Management Plan that is currently in the project development phase. allowable uses in the backcountry area Leaving the backcountry management area designation as it is designation. currently defined for the entire rest of the forest does not preclude keeping that area closed to over-snow vehicle use through the OSVUM travel management planning process. Inclusion of additional trails outside the The proposed trail connections in the area are outside the project project area to be adopted as NFS trails. boundary. There are many trails in the Incline Village area that are outside the project boundary that need to be analyzed to bring them into the NFS. This project does not preclude that future analysis. Provide additional facilities on the site The purpose and need for the project includes providing sustainable such as additional parking, restrooms, access for dispersed recreation. The addition of restrooms, trash, and trash, transit connections, etc. parking areas would convert portions of the site to developed recreation sites, which is outside the scope of the project. This project does not preclude the creation of developed recreation facilities in the future on the areas that remain in general conservation. The existing parking at the top of the Forest Service gate is on IVGID property and within the highway ROW. No parking occurs on Forest Service property. This area is part of the Mt. Rose highway Scenic Byway plan for parking and transit improvements along the highway in the future. Designate the existing NFS trail 18E17 No other trails in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are as a “wilderness access trail” and restrict managed with this proposed designation and there are no other trails mountain bike use on this trail to prevent leading into the wilderness that are designated as “wilderness access unauthorized entry by bicycles into the trails.” No special conditions were identified in this location that wilderness. would compel the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to change that policy here. Additional signs can be posted at the concerned intersections that inform users of the wilderness ahead. Additional signs can be posted at the wilderness border. Propose that all trails in the project area The TRT has a special national trail designation and management allow mountain bike use only on even plan that designates it as odd/even for mountain bikes. No other trails numbered days of the month, similar to in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are managed with this the Tahoe Rim Trail management. designation. Trails other than the TRT are managed for multiple use. No special conditions were identified in this location that would compel the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to change that policy here. Signage and trail stewardship messaging within the community would reduce conflicts, while not limiting the opportunity of any specific group.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 21 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
2.4 Design Features
Project design features are elements of the project that are applied in implementation. These features are developed based on forest plan direction and site-specific evaluations in order to reduce or avoid negative impacts of the proposed action activities.
2.4.1 Resource Protection Measures for All Project-Related Activities
Botany
1. Avoidance of Botanical Resources - Occurrences of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate and Sensitive (TEPCS) botanical species (except whitebark pine) are to be avoided completely during project activities with an appropriate buffer as determined by a staff botanist (in coordination with project leader). 2. Maintenance of suitable habitat – a. Project design and operations will improve or maintain the hydrologic processes that sustain water flow, water quality, water temperature, and hydrological connectivity that is critical to sustaining fen, wetland and riparian ecosystems within the vicinity of the project area (upstream and downstream of the dam) and plant species that depend on these ecosystems. b. In project areas that may impact suitable habitat, native wetland-associated plant species will be revegetated as needed to facilitate channel stabilization, water table maintenance, and erosion prevention. 3. Other botanical resources: During construction planning, review known locations of peat-dominated soils so that avoidance is prioritized. Vehicle and equipment access will not impair peat-dominated soils. Excavation of peat-dominated soils will be avoided during construction.
Invasive Plants
1. Equipment cleaning – a. All equipment and vehicles (Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation must be free of invasive plant material before moving into the project area. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material or other such debris. Cleaning shall occur at a vehicle washing station or steam-cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the project area. Equipment used during emergency work or used exclusively on paved surfaces is exempt from the cleaning requirement. b. When working in known invasive plant infestations or designated weed units, equipment shall be cleaned before moving to other National Forest System lands. These areas will be identified on project maps. 2. Staging areas - Do not stage equipment, materials, or crews in invasive plant-infested areas.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 22 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
3. Project-related disturbance – a. Minimize the amount of ground and vegetation disturbance in staging and construction areas. Where feasible, reestablish vegetation on disturbed bare ground to reduce invasive species establishment; revegetation is especially important in staging areas. b. If staging and construction areas cannot be revegetated (active or passive) or rehabilitated within the same growing season as construction, then they will be covered until such activities can be accomplished, unless revegetation of the area is deemed unnecessary by a staff hydrologist and botanist. Cover options include, but are not limited to, 4 or more inches of wood chip mulch, landscape fabric, or erosion control fabric. 4. Early detection - Any additional infestation discovered prior to or during project implementation should be reported to the forest botanist or their designated appointee for prioritization and assessment for treatment. 5. Post project monitoring - After the project is completed the forest botanist should be notified so that (as funding allows) the project area can be monitored for invasive plants subsequent to project implementation. 6. Gravel, fill, and other materials - All gravel, fill, or other materials are required to be weed-free. Use on-site sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter when possible. Otherwise, obtain weed-free materials from sources that have been certified as weed-free. If a Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit inspector is not available to inspect material source, then the implementing contractor will provide a weed-free certificate for its material source. 7. Mulch and topsoil - Use weed-free mulches and topsoil. Salvage topsoil from project area for use in on-site revegetation, unless contaminated with invasive species. Do not use material (or soil) from areas contaminated by cheatgrass. 8. Revegetation – a. Seed and plant mixes must be approved by the forest botanist or their designated appointee who has knowledge of local flora. b. Invasive species will not be intentionally used in revegetation. Seed lots will be tested for weed seed and test results will be provided to forest botanist or their designated appointee. c. Persistent non-natives, such as timothy (Phleum pretense), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), or crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum) will not be used in revegetation. d. Seed and plant material will be from native, high-elevation sources as much as possible. Plant and seed material should be collected from as close to the project area as possible, from within the same watershed, and at a similar elevation whenever possible.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 23 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Aquatic
1. Retain/add downed wood in the open meadow areas where feasible for native amphibian species. Density should be approximately three logs of greater than 12 inches (30 cm) diameter at midpoint per acre (0.4 ha). 2. Avoid removing or altering bank stabilizing vegetation, live or dead trees within 5 feet of the bank edge of perennial or intermittent streams and lakes or ponds, unless the action is needed to meet project objectives. 3. If water drafting is needed for project implementation activities, water levels at drafting locations would be maintained to support the needs of aquatic-dependent species and associated habitat. Contract administrator and/or watershed specialist will periodically check to ensure water levels are sufficient and appropriate drafting procedures (for instance, proper screening device, maintaining proper flows, etc.) are being followed. If visual monitoring (such as water level on staff plate) indicates flows are not adequate, contract administrator would consult with a hydrologist and/or aquatic biologist (see FSH 2509.22; 12.21 - Exhibit 05). 4. If drafting water, use screening devices for water drafting pumps (Fire suppression activities are exempt during initial attack). Use pumps with low entry velocity to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats (see FSH 2509.22; 12.21 - Exhibit 05). 5. Mussels are not known to occur in the project area but if they are identified, they will be removed prior to any water diversion or instream work where feasible. Feasibility will be determined in the field by Forest Service aquatic biologist and will take into consideration mussel population within and outside of the project area. 6. Salvage/recovery of fish will be conducted within anticipated construction dewatering or diversion zones operations by electro-shocking or other suitable means as developed through consultation with the Nevada Division of Wildlife and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit fisheries staff. Fish will be moved approximately 500 to 700 feet upstream or downstream of project activities. Block nets will be installed to ensure fish do not move back into the project area during project activities. Nets will be cleaned one to two times daily to ensure the nets are functioning. 7. When equipment or vehicles are used at sites known or thought to be contaminated with Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), measures will be employed following formal decontamination procedure. The contractor shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all equipment, boats, and other aquatic equipment meet the Lake Tahoe Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Watercraft Inspection Program. Further information is found at www.tahoeboatinspection.com. 8. Suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within the project area will have three surveys to determine occupancy. As stated in the Programmatic Biological Opinion (FF08ESMF00-2014-F-0557) the three surveys will be within the last 10 years, can be staggered during one season from 14 calendar days after the date snowmelt begins through September 15 (early, mid, late season) or conducted three seasons during separate consecutive years. At least one of the surveys will be conducted during a calendar year where snowpack is 80 percent or greater than normal (USDI 2014).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 24 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Terrestrial Wildlife
1. Retain snags, preferably larger than 15 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), for wildlife unless the snag would be hazardous to operations and/or human safety. Minimize tree removal; retain some mid- and large-diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to provide nesting structure. 2. Existing logs (coarse woody debris) greater than 20 inches dbh would be retained where they exist, or moved and replaced following project activities. Where snags are felled for safety and/or operations, keep as coarse woody debris; preference would be given to the largest logs available in a variety of decay stages for wildlife habitat. 3. Removal of trees and shrubs should be conducted outside the avian nesting season (April 1 through August 15) unless a qualified biologist determines that no nesting is occurring. If removal is planned during the avian nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for active nest sites of all migratory birds of shrubs and trees planned for removal. This survey should occur within 15 days prior to planned removal. If surveys indicate that any bird nest occurs within the survey area, a no-disturbance buffer should be established around the nest site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest. Generally, the buffer zone would be 50 feet for nesting passerine birds and 500 feet for nesting raptors. However, these can be adjusted based on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. If an active bird nest is discovered after initial surveys have been completed, but during implementation activities, the nest should immediately be protected with an appropriate no-disturbance buffer and monitored by a qualified biologist to determine if the buffer should be increased or decreased. This would, in part, depend on the status of the species, the location of construction activities, and the intensity of the construction activities at the time the nest was found. 4. Concurrent with the avian nest surveys, large snags and large trees with defects should be surveyed for bat roosts. If surveys indicate a roost within the survey area, a no- disturbance buffer should be established around the roost site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the roost. However, this can be adjusted based on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of site between the roost and the disturbance, ambient noise levels and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. 5. At this time, the project area only extends 600 feet into the Incline Creek goshawk protected activity center (PAC). If northern goshawk and/or California spotted owl are detected within the project area and determined to be nesting elsewhere within the analysis area, a PAC will be delineated in accordance with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan. If a PAC is delineated within 0.25 mile of a project area prior to construction, an LOP would be implemented which would limit construction activities and vegetation treatments during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31 for California spotted owl; and February 15 through September 15 for northern goshawk). The LOP may be waived if surveys confirm nesting is not occurring or
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 25 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
if the activity is of such scale and duration that impacts to breeding California spotted owls or northern goshawks will not occur. 6. No LOPs currently apply to this project. If special status wildlife species are detected in the project vicinity, the Responsible Official may implement an LOP. 7. Any sightings of threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed, or sensitive species would be reported to the project biologist and construction would be stopped immediately if the species is found within any disturbance footprint. If construction is stopped, the project biologist will be consulted within 24 hours. Based upon this consultation, the Responsible Official may adapt construction timelines or facility locations as determined necessary to provide adequate protection. 8. Retain red fir trees containing large witches’ brooms caused by red fir broom rust (Melampsorella caryophyllacearum) unless the tree would be a hazard to human operations and/or human safety.
Hydrology/Soils
1. Implement temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMP) to meet water quality objectives and maintain and improve the quality of surface water on the forest. Ensure that temporary erosion control measures will be in place prior to commencing any soil disturbing activities. Methods and techniques for applying the BMPs are incorporated into the associated project plan and implementation documents. Erosion control measures may include but will not be limited to: water diversions through pumping, sandbag check dams, and diversion pipes and hoses, silt fences, straw wattles, coir logs, water filled berms, mulching, gravel/sand bags, construction limit fencing, and revegetation. 2. The US Forest Service has developed technical guidance to provide uniform direction for BMP implementation on all Forest Service lands to protect water quality (FS-990a, 2012). The following National BMPs will be considered during project planning and analysis to develop site-specific BMP prescriptions/practices to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resource: AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems; Road-5 Temporary Roads; Road-7 Stream Crossings; Road-9 Parking and Staging Areas; Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing; WatUses-6 Dam Removal. 3. Soil-disturbing activities will not occur from October 15 to May 1 of each year unless a grading exception is applied for and approved from TRPA. Assure that permanent or temporary erosion control measures are in place for the winter season. 4. Temporary roads may be constructed for use during this project and will be designed with the least amount of cut and fill and the fewest stream or water channel crossings and will include temporary BMPs. Any temporary roads will be obliterated when the one-time need is fulfilled. 5. All disturbed areas, including staging and storage sites, will be stabilized and revegetated following construction. 6. Loose dirt and other debris will be cleared from rocks and logs before placing them into channels at head cuts. 7. Soil movement within the channel will be avoided during repair of head cuts.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 26 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
8. Exposed bare soil resulting from the repairs will be covered with rock, logs or branches, or will be planted with vegetative material (for example, willow stakes spaced every 1 foot).
Cultural Resources
1. All known cultural resource sites within the Project Area will be protected using standard protection measures found in appendix of the PA and enumerated in the attached PA approval documentation. 2. If unrecorded/new cultural resources (for instance, prehistoric sites, historic sites, and isolated artifacts and features) are discovered during project implementation, then work shall be halted immediately within 50 feet of the discovery and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit shall be notified. Project activities will not continue until either it is determined that activities can resume using standard protection measures or if consultation will be required under 36 CFR 800 regulations.
Recreation
1. Postings and public notices would be issued in advance of construction and posted at public access points and trails as well as on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit website. 2. During project implementation, construction fencing would be placed at public access points in order to deter users from continued use of the construction area during implementation. 3. Only consider a temporary forest closure during the project activity period when public safety concerns exist. Closure would be as limited as possible to reduce restrictions to public access. 4. Maintain recreational facilities (for instance, roads and trails) in a usable condition to the extent possible unless there is a concern for human health and safety and/or project implementation is impeded.
2.4.2 Resource Protection Measures for Vegetation Management Activities
Broadcast burning
1. Design underburning prescriptions to avoid adverse effects on soil and water resources by planning prescribed fire to ensure that fire intensity and duration do not result in severely burned soils. 2. Flame heights for underburning would not exceed two feet within 25 feet of stream courses or on wetlands unless higher intensities are required to achieve specific objectives. Flame heights for underburning would not exceed 6 inches within 50 feet of the UTR (in Meiss Meadow). No ignitions will take place within identified stream corridors (for instance, within 25 feet of perennial and intermittent streams; 50 feet of perennial streams in Meiss Meadow). Fire will be allowed to back into these corridors (BMP 6-2 and 6-3).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 27 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
3. Existing roads and trails will be used as fire line to the extent feasible. When line construction is necessary it will be completed with hand tools, to the minimum width and depth necessary to hold the fire. Minimum impact suppression techniques (MIST) will be used. All fire line will be rehabilitated by pulling any berms created back into the line and creating water bars where necessary. Prior to development of the burn plan, consultation with the watershed specialist will occur to determine the appropriate construction and decommissioning techniques in meadow areas to avoid soil and water quality impacts.
Pile burning in SEZ
1. Maintain a minimum 25-foot buffer (no piling or pile burning) from water courses, except in Meiss Meadow (50 feet). 2. No more than 30 percent of any SEZ acre may be occupied with piles. 3. No more than 15 percent of any SEZ acre can have burn scars at any time which do not have vegetative recovery (not invasive weeds). 4. All burn scars must either 1) have native duff or organic mulch and seed raked into the scar to a minimum of 85 percent coverage as soon as the burn is completely extinguished, or 2) have native duff or organic mulch and seed raked into the scar to a minimum 85 percent coverage if the scar does not have vegetative recovery within two growing seasons following the burn. 5. Burn scars that exceed either a 25-foot diameter or 500 contiguous square feet shall have native duff or organic mulch and seed raked into the scar to a minimum 85 percent coverage. 6. Burn scar raking, whether under option 1) above, or to address large burn scars, must occur as soon as the burn is completely extinguished. In the event the burn scar and surrounding ground is covered by ice or snow, the required raking must occur by June 1 following the burning. 7. After initial ignition of piles, but while still burning, allow each pile to be re-piled once (for instance, place large unburned pieces back into the burning pile). Additional re- piling will be allowed if necessary to achieve 80 percent consumption of the piled material. 8. When piles are adjacent to aspen trees, re-piling during pile burning shall be restricted to one time per pile and hot piling is prohibited (for instance, don’t feed one pile with the material from other piles or ground material). 9. Areas burned within SEZs must be left in a condition such that waste, including ash, soils, and/or debris, will not discharge to a waterbody.
Pile burning in uplands
1. Maintain a minimum 25 foot buffer (no piling or pile burning) from water courses. 2. Design prescribed fire prescriptions to avoid adverse effects on soil and water resources by planning prescribed fire to ensure that fire intensity and duration do not result in severely burned soils.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 28 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Scenic/Recreation
1. Maintain a distance of a minimum of at least 10 feet, but 25 feet where feasible, between any burn piles and the centerline of designated system trails, including the trails proposed to be adopted as NFS trails, where “lop and scatter” approaches are not feasible to meet project objectives. 2. Within 50 feet of the centerline of designated system trails including the trails proposed to be adopted as NFS trails, limit stump height of any cut trees to approximately 6 inches above ground, measured from the uphill side of the stump, and cut stumps parallel to ground surface where practicable. Within 10 feet either side of system trail alignments, cut all stumps to 2 inches maximum height from ground level or as close to the ground level as practical; cuts will be made level to avoid leaving pointed staubs/stumps. 3. Avoid painting of any trees which will not be cut, with exception for treatment boundary trees. Painting will be minimized on boundary trees. 4. Post temporary interpretive signs along the trails near project activity areas during periods of conifer removal and burning when activity is visible from trail. Remove signage following project activities. 5. Schedule treatments to avoid work during Saturdays and Sundays in July and August to minimize disturbance to recreation use and access. 6. Do not pile cut material within 10 feet either side of system trail alignments. 7. Do not chip material onto system trail tread surface. 8. Restore all disturbance resulting from project activities, including impacts to existing trail surface or structures, disturbance to areas previously closed/decommissioned and restored, disturbance to parking, staging and trailhead areas. Project restoration actions will result in returning affected area to pre-implementation condition as much as possible. Coordinate with Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Trails Manager for project monitoring to ensure disturbance and restoration actions meet trail management objectives. 9. For any project implementation requiring trail closure or potential impacts to public trail use – provide a minimum two weeks’ notice via signs posted in the area with closure dates and potential impacts to trail use, coordinate with Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit trails manager to notify affected partners and volunteer organizations.
Botanical Resources
1. Bruchia bolanderi (Bolander’s candle-moss)—Occurrences will be designated as ‘botanical treatment areas’ where all ground-disturbing activities will be excluded. Other project activities are allowed with the following restrictions: a. Botanical treatment areas will be identified on project maps and flagged prior to implementation. b. Piles will not be constructed or burned within 20 feet of plants. c. Ignition and construction of fireline is prohibited. d. Foot traffic is minimized. e. Supplemental willows will not be planted.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 29 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
f. Manipulation of fuels to reduce impacts to individuals during prescribed fire treatments is allowed. 2. Pinus albicaulis (whitebark pine)— If project activities occur in whitebark pine stands the following restrictions apply: a. Piles will not be constructed or burned within 10 feet of whitebark pine. b. Individual trees or clusters of trees with at least one tree 18 inches dbh or greater will be retained. c. Clusters of trees consisting of at least two trees 12 inches dbh or greater will be retained. d. Trees may be removed, if dead or displaying evidence of pathogens or disease. e. Exceptions for safety are allowed. f. Where removal of whitebark pine is necessary for meeting project objectives the order of preference for removal will be based on the following: i. Signs of insects or disease or overall decline in health. ii. Small suppressed trees. iii. Trees growing in clumps that consist of less than 3 stems. iv. Individual trees or clumps of trees with at least one tree 18 inches dbh will be retained. v. Clumps of trees consisting of at least two trees 12 inches dbh will be retained. 3. Fens will be designated as “botanical treatment areas” where all ground-disturbing activities will be excluded, but in which other project activities allowed with the following restrictions: a. Botanical treatment areas will be identified on project maps and flagged prior to implementation. b. Foot traffic is minimized within botanical treatment area. c. Felled trees will not be dragged through botanical treatment area. d. Piles will only be located in areas designated by a staff botanist or ecologist prior to implementation. In general, pile construction will be minimized in fens and piles will be focused in portions of fens that are previously disturbed, not perennially saturated, or do not exhibit peat-forming vegetation. e. Ignition and construction of fireline is prohibited within botanical treatment area. f. Supplemental willows will not be planted within botanical treatment area. 4. If conifer removal/thinning and/or prescribed burning treatments are conducted in a fen, then the fen will be monitored pre- and post-project implementation, unless there is sufficient evidence to support that the treatment will not adversely impact the fen.
Terrestrial Wildlife Resources
1. Design vegetation treatments in PACs in conjunction with the project biologist to ensure that critical habitat elements are retained. Vegetation treatments would maintain:
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 30 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
a. Habitat connectivity with the adjacent forest; avoid vegetation treatments adjacent to a PAC or HRCA that would functionally isolate the PAC or HRCA from the rest of the forested landscape. b. At least 60% canopy cover in a PAC. c. The presence of very large snags in PACs d. Snag and coarse woody debris material levels that are higher than average.
Vegetative Resources
1. Stand cards describing site-specific resource protection measures will be completed prior to individual meadow implementation. 2. Sporax would be used on cut stumps greater than 14 inches diameter in the buffers. No sporax will be used within any of the meadows. No sporax would be used within 25 feet of standing or running water. Sporax would not be used during rainfall events to avoid washing off target stump surfaces. The use of Sporax in Hell Hole would be coordinated between the aquatic biologist and vegetation specialist. 3. Thinning that occurs on the meadow edge to reduce the impacts of conifer encroachment/seed sources may reduce basal area of conifers to less than 40 percent of existing conditions to reduce impacts of conifer encroachment. 4. Thinning that occurs within the forest to ensure that fire can be safely and effectively introduced into proposed meadows will retain at least 40 percent of existing basal area. 5. Conifer canopy cover would likely be reduced by more than 30 percent to reduce impacts of conifer encroachment to meadow. In forest thinning, canopy cover will not be reduced by more than 30 percent within treatment unit. 6. For willow planting, site preparation will disturb only enough of the ground cover (grasses, forbs, shrubs and litter) to provide a planting bed. 7. Trees greater than 30” dbh will not be felled or removed unless they meet the following exceptions. These exceptions do not apply within PACs: a) The tree(s) larger than 30 inches dbh presents a safety hazard, prevents equipment operability, or removal is required in conjunction with a special use permit (e.g.utility line). b) The tree(s) larger than 30 inches dbh has been successfully infected by disease and/or infested by insects with potential to spread to adjacent trees and is in a developed recreation site or facility site (e.g. a communication site). c) When necessary to support aspen, meadow or stream restoration d) When managing for blister rust resistant sugar pines that require removal of competing trees within a sufficient radius to improve health of the sugar pine. 8. Allow removal of large trees (>30 inches dbh) to achieve desired conditions for the forest type (DCs 27-35 ) when: a) the average dbh of overstory trees (dominant and co-dominant trees) within the stand is greater than 30 inches dbh and the stand density index (SDI) indicates that widespread mortality is imminent (e.g. SDImax), and b) reducing SDI to a prescribed level for the forest type that will maintain the stand below SDImax for 15-20 years requires removal of some large trees, and
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 31 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
c) the selection for removal or snag or down log creation would allow competitive release for growth of the largest trees. d) Selection of trees for removal would give preference to shade tolerant trees, and where they exist, retain clumps of large trees.
Air Quality
1. A burn plan will be prepared and reviewed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Fire Managements Officer prior to implementation. The Burn Plan will include a Smoke Management Plan which is the basis for obtaining a permit with Eldorado Air Quality Management District. In order to minimize the effects of prescribed burning on air quality; monitoring, mitigation and contingency measures will be identified in the Smoke Management Plan. Desirable meteorological conditions such as favorable mixing height and transport wind speeds are required in the Smoke Management Plan to facilitate venting and dispersion of smoke from populated areas.
2.5 Summary of Environmental Consequences
Chapter 3 of this environmental assessment discusses the environmental consequences of the no-action and proposed action alternatives by resource area, including direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The following table provides a comparative summary of these effects.
Table 2. Summary of Effects by Resource
Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Recreation No effect to recreation access. Indirect impacts Recreation experience and opportunity to recreation experience and opportunity expected to benefit from improved road and related to degraded, roads, and trails due to the trail conditions. inability to maintain them. Scenic No effect Project activity consistent with forest plan Resources visual quality objectives. No effects to scenic resources. Botanical No effect There would be no significant effects to any Resources threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species (TEPCS), Forest Service sensitive or sensitive habitats as a result of the scope of the project actions and design features applied to each proposed action component. Wildlife No effect There would be no significant effects to any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species (TEPCS), Forest Service sensitive species, migratory landbirds, from project activities as a result of the scope of the project actions and design features applied to each proposed action component. Fisheries and If head cuts continue to expand, aquatic habitat Project activities would improve aquatic Aquatic would continue to decline with increased resources by repairing head cuts and ditches, Resources sediment into the stream. thus reducing erosion and providing more water to Third Creek, and upgrading trails and crossings to meet Forest Service trail guidelines and BMPs.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 32 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Resource No-action Alternative Proposed Action Soils and If head cuts continue to expand, water quality The projects activities will only generate Hydrology would continue to decline with increased localized short-term impacts to quality of sediment into the stream. water, due to project size and the use water management BMPs. Over the long term there will be beneficial impact due to the increase in riparian vegetation and stream channel stability. No impact to water rights on the site. Less than significant effects to hydrologic resources. Heritage No effect No effect, consistent with Programmatic Agreement between Forest Service and State Historic Preservation Officers. Vegetation Conifer forests would continue to increase in The removal of conifers or aspen within aspen stand densities. In areas where the stand stands will help restore aspen communities by densities are already high, there would be a eliminating competition of resources such as continued decline in growth and vigor and water and sunlight and allow for recruitment of increase in mortality. Trees would become aspen seedlings. Conifer forests located more stressed and more susceptible to insects throughout the project area would have limited and disease. Whitebark pine would continue to treatment focusing on removal of unhealthy decline in health and have less opportunities trees especially whitebark pine with openings for recruitment. Encroachment of confer created to allow recruitment of healthier trees. species within aspen and meadows would There would be less than significant effects to continue and decrease ability of aspen to whitebark pine and vegetation resources. remain healthy and vigorous Forest Plan No effect. The entire project area would Designation of the proposed backcountry area Amendment continue to remain designated as general is in keeping with the desired conditions, as conservation (general forest). well as current and future proposed recreational use, scenic management, wildlife management objectives, botanical management objectives, timber management objectives, and hydrology/soil management objectives in that area. No impact to substantive requirements as required by the procedural provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule and all the directly related substantive requirements in Sections 219.8 through 219.11 of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 33 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences 3.0 Assumptions
• The decision regarding the future of the dam and Incline Lake was reached in the Incline Lake Dam Project, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact, January 2015. This project will not re-open that decision and the proposed actions in the Incline Management Plan project are consistent with the actions approved under the Incline Lake Dam Project decision. • Winter recreation activities such as open/closed areas for over-the-snow vehicle use, grooming, snow play, etc. are being analyzed in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Winter Recreation and Travel Management Project, which includes Travel Management analysis for 36 CFR 212 Subpart C - Use by Over-Snow Vehicles. • The Forest Service and partners or other agencies implementing the work have the relevant experience to conduct this work, and the engineering knowledge and technology is available to construct the project to meet the stated performance standards. The project will be constructed to current Forest Service and TRPA guidance for BMPs, grading timelines, and design standards at the time of installation. • Activities would be strategically phased over time as needed. • The implementation of other projects planned within the proposed project (for instance, Incline Fuels Reduction Project and the Incline Lake Dam Project) area will not substantially change the existing conditions for the purposes of analysis of this proposed action. • The Incline Fuels Reduction Project will move forward as planned. The Incline Management Plan project does not affect that work or preclude any work proposed in that project. • All temporary construction access areas would be restored to better-than or equal to pre- project conditions. • Adoption of roads and trails would include designation of management objectives. Once designated within the National Forest System database, the roads and trails would be eligible for the routine and corrective maintenance activities approved in the Integrated Management and Use of Trails, Roads, and Facilities Environmental Assessment, including removal of hazard trees. • This proposed action does not preclude any future project-level proposals on the site. Future proposals within the proposed backcountry designation would need to meet the limitations described in the forest plan for backcountry areas. • Cumulative actions considered are listed in Appendix C.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 34 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
3.1 Forest Plan Amendment 3.1.1 Background
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit acquired 774 acres of land in Incline Village, Nevada in 2011 in order to help the Forest Service reach its goal of protecting water quality and natural resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The land was placed in the general conservation management area during the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land Management Plan (forest plan) revision in 2016 (see figure 3). The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit has since been asked by the public to consider changing the general conservation management area designation, and the land has since been determined appropriate for consideration under the backcountry management area designation.
During the scoping of the proposed action, the following language was included to describe the content of the proposed forest plan amendment:
The preliminary need to amend and change the forest plan is to designate approximately 400 acres of the project area (west of Third Creek) as the backcountry management area because we believe it would result in benefits to water quality, habitat, scenery, and dispersed recreation opportunities. The remainder of the site would remain designated as general conservation (general forest). No change to the management area description in the forest plan is proposed; only the geographic distribution of the land designated as backcountry management area within the project area is proposed to change. The following substantive requirements may be related to the amendment: 36CFR 219.8 (a3i) Riparian Areas sustainability, and 36 CFR 219.10 (a [1, 6, and 10]) Integrated resource management for multiple use. The plan amendment will be subject to the objection procedures outlined in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B.
A legal notice of the availability of the project for public comment and the proposed forest plan amendment scoping requirements was posted in the newspaper of record, the Tahoe Daily Tribune, on November 29, 2017.
No comments were received during scoping that specifically cite the substantive requirements. However, the substantive requirements contained within 36 CFR 219.10 include reference to most resource areas, so comments related to resources, including “recreation setting and opportunities” would be considered relevant to the discussion of substantive requirements. Section 1.8 summarizes the issues received during scoping, and Section 2.3 describes the changes to the proposed action as a result of scoping comments, as well as comments received that were not considered further.
Comments were received during scoping related to proposed winter over-snow-vehicle use within the proposed backcountry designation. These comments are summarized in Section 2.3.1 and were not considered further because designation of areas open to over-snow-vehicle use is being considered under the Winter Recreation and Travel Management Plan Project that is currently in the phase of proposed action development. The designation of the area as
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 35 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
backcountry management area does not preclude either opening or closing the area to OSV use because OSV use in the backcountry management area is described as follows:
Over-snow vehicle use (OSV) is limited to designated areas (Snowmobile Area Map – Map 18) (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP Section 2.3.3 page 76).
The Winter Recreation and Travel Management Plan will designate a new snowmobile area Map - 18, and the public will have an opportunity to comment on which areas should be designated as open to OSV use, including the area that is proposed for designation as backcountry management area in this project.
The scoping comments did not lead to any changes in the proposed action related to the forest plan amendment and did not prompt the need to amend any of the desired conditions, strategies, or design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the existing forest plan.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 36 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
Figure 3. Existing Forest Plan Management Area Designations in the Project Area
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 37 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
3.1.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
The 2012 Planning Rule describes the procedural provisions related to amending a forest plan.
These procedural provisions are: using the best available scientific information to inform the planning process (§ 219.3), providing opportunities for public participation (§ 219.4), the applicable format for plan components (§ 219.7(e)), the plan amendment process (§ 219.13), including specific information in a decision document (§ 219.14), stating whether or not projects authorized at the time of amendment may continue without change (§ 219.15(a)), giving public notice (§ 219.16), setting the effective date for amendments (§ 219.17), and providing an objection opportunity (subpart B).
No changes were proposed to the monitoring program (§ 219.12).
The effects from the forest plan amendment would be considered significant if the project did meet the procedural revision requirements referenced above, including a discussion of how the project affects the substantive requirements. The effects of the project on the substantive requirements referenced below would be considered significant if the project resulted in significant effects to any of the resources listed without mitigation through changes to the plan components, standards or guidelines.
The substantive requirements proposed during scoping as possibly being related to this proposed amendment are summarized below. These substantive requirements were chosen for consideration in relation to this project because the designation of the area as backcountry had the potential to impact how the area was managed for riparian resources, as well as how the area was managed for multiple use values that might require changes to the plan components or standards and guidelines for these resources. A full description of the rationale for selecting these substantive requirements is contained within the project record.
36CFR 219.8 (a3i) Riparian Areas sustainability:
The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of riparian areas in the plan area, including plan components to maintain or restore structure, function, composition, and connectivity, taking into account:
(A) Water temperature and chemical composition; (B) Blockages (uncharacteristic and characteristic) of water courses; (C) Deposits of sediment; (D) Aquatic and terrestrial habitats; (E) Ecological connectivity; (F) Restoration needs; and (G) Floodplain values and risk of flood loss.
36 CFR 219.10 (a [1, 6, and 10]) Integrated resource management for multiple use:
The plan must include plan components, including standards or guidelines, for integrated resource management to provide for ecosystem services and multiple uses in the plan area. When developing plan components for integrated resource management, to the extent relevant
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 38 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
to the plan area and the public participation process and the requirements of §§ 219.7, 219.8, 219.9, and 219.11, the responsible official shall consider:
(1)Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant resources and uses.
(6) Land status and ownership, use, and access patterns relevant to the plan area.
(10) Opportunities to connect people with nature.
3.1.3 Analysis of Effects
3.1.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative, the project area would remain in the general conservation (general forest) management area and be subject to the suitable uses and management practices applicable to the general conservation management area shown in Appendix D (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP Section 2.3.6 and Table 4, page 81). The entire area would remain available for development of infrastructure including developed recreation, resorts, recreation residences, ski areas, organization camps, non-commercial group use, administrative facilities, communication sites, and urban stormwater treatment.
3.1.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
Under this alternative, the area shown in figure 2 as proposed for backcountry management designation would be changed in the forest plan from the existing general conservation management area to the backcountry management area designation. No changes to the backcountry management area definition (Section 2.3.3, 2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, page 76) and suitable uses and management practices shown in Appendix D are proposed, only the geographic distribution of the management area within the project area (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, Table 4, page 81).
Substantive Requirements Designating this area as backcountry would preclude the following infrastructure and management activities in the area: developed recreation facilities, resorts, recreation residences, ski areas, organization camps, non-commercial group use, administrative facilities, communication sites, and urban stormwater treatment. Because of the steep topography of the area, only two trails currently exist in the area proposed for backcountry designation.
One existing NFS trail connects the Incline Lake area to Mt. Rose Wilderness (18E17) and one trail proposed to be adopted runs parallel to Third Creek along the eastern edge of the proposed backcountry area. No other trails are proposed for this area and no additional
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 39 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
infrastructure has been planned in the future for this area. The extremely steep slopes and easily erodible soils preclude virtually any type of infrastructure development in the area without significant impacts to the scenic character, habitats, and sensitive soils in the area. No ski area proposals have been received for this area.
Designation of this area as backcountry would be in keeping with the scenic character of the area and the existing dispersed recreation activities that occur in the area. The backcountry designation would provide for additional protections from management activities and infrastructure development that could possibly have negative effects on botanical, wildlife, aquatic, hydrology, and vegetation resources in the area. The desired condition for these resources currently exist in the areas proposed for backcountry designation and the existing standards and guidelines in the existing forest plan adequately provide the tools to monitor and protect these resources.
Designation of the area as backcountry would only improve the ability to maintain or restore the area’s riparian structure, function, composition, and connectivity. The standards and guidelines in the existing forest plan adequately provide tools and guidelines monitor and address the following in the project area: (A) Water temperature and chemical composition; (B) Blockages (uncharacteristic and characteristic) of water courses; (C) Deposits of sediment; (D) Aquatic and terrestrial habitats; (E) Ecological connectivity; (F) Restoration needs; and (G) Floodplain values and risk of flood loss.
Designation of the area as backcountry would not affect the existing land status and ownership, use, or access patterns relevant to the plan area. The area to the west of the proposed backcountry is wilderness management area. The desired condition and allowable uses for backcountry do not pose a critical conflict for wilderness management. The standards and guidelines for wilderness management in the existing forest plan would not be impacted or require additional protections in this area as a result of the backcountry designation. Backcountry is considered the most compatible adjacent use to wilderness. The existing access routes into the area proposed for backcountry are proposed for adoption under the roads and trails components of this project proposed action (Section 2.2.2) and would not be impacted by the backcountry designation.
The existing dispersed recreation opportunities in the area proposed for backcountry designation offer world-class opportunities to connect people with nature through activities such as hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and scenic viewing. More developed opportunities to connect people with nature such as visitor centers or intensive interpretive installations are already precluded from this site due to the steep topography, sensitive soils, and sensitive habitats. There is no effect to the opportunity to connect people with nature from the backcountry designation.
The scoping comments did not lead to any changes in the proposed action related to the forest plan amendment. The proposed forest plan amendment does not result in significant effects to scenic, recreation, hydrologic, botanical, terrestrial wildlife, aquatic wildlife, heritage, or vegetation resources and there is no mitigation required for any of the resources listed in the
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 40 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
substantive requirements that would prompt changes to the plan components, standards or guidelines. There is no effect to the substantive requirements as a result of this proposed forest plan amendment.
Procedural Provisions Under § 219.3, the responsible official shall determine what information is the most accurate, reliable, and relevant to the issues being considered. An interdisciplinary team (IDT) of resource specialists reviewed the proposed forest plan amendment to determine the effect on their resource. Chapter 4 lists the IDT members consulted on the project and their specialty. Each resource analyzed in Chapter 3 of this EA describes the effects of the proposed amendment, the indicators used to analyze the effects per Forest Service guidelines and per the 2016 LTBMU Forest Plan (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP), as well as additional information available in the project record.
The responsible official must provide opportunities for public participation (§ 219.4). Scoping for this project, including the proposed plan amendment and relative substantive requirements, was completed as described in Section 1.7 in accordance with both § 219.4 and § 219.16. Chapter 4 includes a list of internal IDT members consulted on the project, Federal, State, and Local Agencies, Tribal entities, Individuals, and Organizations that were sent information on the project. Section 1.8 describes the relevant issues that were raised from public participation. The project record contains the actual scoping responses as well as a scoping summary report.
The applicable format for plan components (§ 219.7(e)) must include desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, and the amendment must indicate whether specific plan components apply to the entire plan area, to specific management areas or geographic areas, or to other areas as identified in the plan. The amendment proposed is limited to the geographic area described in figure 2. As stated above, the amendment does not require a change to the desired conditions, objectives, or standards and guidelines in the existing forest plan and these existing plan components are adequate to meet the requirements set forth in § 219.8 to § 219.11.
The project record includes a detailed description of how the plan amendment process (§ 219.13) was met, including the need to change the plan (Section 3.1.1), the public participation for the plan amendment (Section 1.7), how the proposed amendment is consistent with Forest Service NEPA procedures through the analysis in an environmental assessment (Section 1.9), and detailed rationale for the selection of the substantive requirements (Section 3.1.2).
No changes were proposed to the monitoring program (§ 219.12).
Any future project initiated after the signature by the deciding official of the Final Decision Notice/Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) would be subject to the updated forest plan amendment for the backcountry management area designation in the area shown in figure 2. The two projects with current decisions that are adjacent to or within the proposed backcountry area are the Incline Fuels Reduction Project and the Incline Lake Dam Project. These projects would not be retroactively subject to the amended forest plan, however the proposed actions
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 41 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action
of both these projects meet the suitable uses and management practices for the backcountry management designation (§ 219.15(a)). The amendment would be effective immediately upon signature of the decision document (§ 219.17).
This proposed plan amendment is subject to the objection opportunity in 36 CFR 219 Subpart B. The project-specific portions of this proposed action are subject to the objection opportunity in 36 CFR 219.26. Both objection periods for an environmental assessment are 45 days and are planned to occur concurrently upon publication of a draft Decision Notice. The final decision document will contain the information required by § 219.14.
3.1.4 Cumulative Effects
There are no direct or indirect effects to any resource as a result of the forest plan amendment. There would be no effects to accumulate with past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future projects (Appendix C).
3.1.5 Analytical Conclusions
The area proposed for backcountry designation would not preclude or impact any current or future projects planned in that area. The designation is consistent with the desired scenic character, dispersed recreation use, and level of development planned in that area. The scoping comments did not lead to any changes in the proposed action related to the forest plan amendment and the analysis of the proposed amendment did not prompt the need to amend any of the desired conditions, strategies, or design criteria (standards and guidelines) in the existing forest plan.
The desired condition for backcountry currently exists within the area proposed for backcountry designation. The only changes to the forest plan that would result from the amendment would be an update to the map of the areas designated as the backcountry management area on Map 01 – Management Areas (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, Map 01), the map inset included in the backcountry management area description (Section 2.3.3, 2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, page 76), and the map inset included in the general conservation area description (Section 2.3.4, 2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP, page 78). Designation of this area as backcountry would help protect the area for scenic, botanical, wildlife, aquatic, hydrologic, and vegetation resources, in addition to maintaining the character of the existing dispersed recreation in that area.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 42 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.2 Recreation Resources 3.2.1 Background
Recreation in and around the existing Incline Dam and throughout the project area generally occurs in the form of hiking, mountain biking, viewing scenery, and viewing wildlife. The area is considered dispersed recreation because there are no facilities available at the site. The existing parking area located at the intersection of the dam access road and SR 431 is completely within the highway right-of-way or on the Incline Village General Improvement District (IVGID) parcel located within the project area. The parking area is not on NFS lands.
There are a number of existing trails throughout the project area. Only one of the trails is currently within the NFS of trails. Until a trail is brought into the NFS, the ability to effectively maintain or upgrade the trails is limited. The dam access road is currently gated and not open for public motorized use.
3.2.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
This analysis relies on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit’s forest plan, the Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility guidelines, the Architectural Barriers Act/American Disabilities Act, the Forest Service Built Environment Image Guide, and Forest Service Manual direction (USDA Forest Service 2006: Section 2333–Site and Facility Planning and Design; USDA Forest Service 2003: Chapter 2380–Landscape Management).
Impacts to dispersed recreation resources are analyzed based on the effects to access and opportunity. Access is considered the ability for visitors to reach desired locations in order to engage in the opportunities available on-site. Opportunities for dispersed recreation would include hiking, wildlife viewing, viewing scenery, or other types of active and passive recreation that can be undertaken by individuals without specialized equipment or facilities.
Recreation opportunity is described using the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS). The forest plan classifies management areas within Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands that have associated ROS classifications ranging from urban (highest level of development) to semi-primitive non-motorized (lowest level of development). The portion of the site to the west of Third Creek is considered semi-primitive non-motorized and the remainder of the site is classified as roaded natural (see Figure 4).
Project activities would be considered to have a significant impact on recreation opportunity and access if the resulting conditions would require a change in ROS designation, the proposed action alters the site to the degree that public access to the site or portions of the site is precluded, or the proposed action increases the access to the site such that the character of the site is completely changed from the existing condition.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 43 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
ROS Area Characteristics on the Site:
Roaded Natural – Area is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided for in construction standards and design of facilities.
Semi-Primitive Non-motorized – Area is characterized by a predominiantly natural or natural-appearing environment of moderate to large size. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present, but are subtle. Motorized use is not permitted.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 44 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Figure 4. Incline Management Plan Project Area Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 45 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.2.3 Analysis of Effects
3.2.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
The existing ROS class of roaded natural and semi-primitive non-motorized would remain unchanged. The ability of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit to maintain the trails would continue to be limited because the trails would remain categorized as non-system trails. The access through the site would deteriorate over time as the trails remained unmanaged. This alternative meets the current forest plan direction.
3.2.3.2 Proposed action – Alternative 2
The proposed action would not significantly change the character of the site, the opportunity for dispersed recreation opportunities, or the access to the site other than to allow for improved management of the site, especially the trails. The proposed vegetation management treatments, as well as hydrology and habitat restoration activities would not impact the existing recreation opportunity on the site or limit the access to or within the site. The adoption of the trails system would improve the access and the quality of the hiking opportunity on the site, including the quality of the crossing structures over Third Creek.
Small reroutes of trails may occur to relocate them outside of sensitive areas or to prevent resource damage, but the reroutes would be short in nature and would not cut off any of the existing loop opportunities or destinations. The new small loop trail near the former Incline Lake area would provide improved access to a sensitive area for scenic viewing and wildlife viewing, while still protecting the sensitive habitats near the trail. The remote location of this trail is not expected to be a draw for new users to the site, rather it would mitigate impacts from existing use at the site.
All trails and roads would remain non-motorized and would be managed for multiple use. This is consistent with the Forest Plan. The blocking of the road that is adjacent to SR431 would not restrict any of the non-motorized activities that currently occur on that road.
The site would remain as a dispersed recreation area under the proposed action. No new facilities or additional parking are proposed that would change the character of the site. No new access routes onto the site are proposed. It is not expected that existing number of visitors to the site would significantly increase or decrease as a result of the project activities. Adoption of the trails will result in a better experience of trail users. While the trails in the Incline Management Plan project cross some sensitive areas, for the most part their existing condition has not limited access or use of them and therefore upgrading the trails will not open up new opportunities for access or use that were previously limited by trail condition. The parcel has been in Forest Service ownership since 2011 and the use patterns have generally been established in this area. A small increase in the number of users may result in adoption of the trails, however adoption and upgrading of the trails is not expected to alter site use in a way that would affect the existing experience of dispersed recreation activities on the site.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 46 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
The proposed activities are also not expected to cause a perceptible change in the existing geographic distribution of site use, or change the types of use on the site. There would be no effect to the existing character of the site as a result of the proposed action.
All of the proposed activities would be consistent with the existing ROS classes on the site. All of the area that is classified as semi-primitive non-motorized would be within the area proposed for designation as backcountry, which fits with the character of semi-primitive non-motorized and would help ensure the area remains within this ROS designation due to the limitations on further development in the backcountry management area. Designating this area as backcountry would preclude this area from future development such as permanent roads or developed recreation facilities. This area is very steep and remote in nature and would not be appropriate for these types of facilities or other infrastructure such as stormwater control, and none of these facilities have ever been requested or are planned in the future for the area west of Third Creek. The existing dispersed recreation activities that occur in this area are appropriate for the backcountry management area designation.
Temporary and short-term disruptions to general forest recreation access may result from project construction activities; however the nature of the proposed activities and the design features included in the proposed action would limit any disruptions in context, intensity, and duration to a level that is less than significant.
3.2.4 Cumulative Effects
This project would have no direct or indirect effects to recreation access, opportunity, or experience. There would be no effects to accumulate with past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future projects (Appendix C).
3.1.5 Analytical Conclusions
None of the proposed actions would degrade the existing ROS classes within the project area. The proposed action would have no effect the character of the site, the opportunity for dispersed recreation opportunities, or access to the site. The improved management and upkeep of the trails in the area would improve the experience on the trails. The existing non- motorized nature of the site would continue. Impacts from all proposed activities would be limited by the nature of the proposed activities and their design features, and implementing the proposed action would result in no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to recreation access, opportunity, and experience on NFS lands in the project area.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 47 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.3 Vegetation Resources 3.3.1 Background
This analysis discusses the effects to aspen and coniferous forest vegetation in the project area. The potential effects to vegetation in the fens and meadows are discussed in the Botanical Resources section (3.6). Forests within the project area are variable with tree species including lodgepole pine, western white pine and red fir as well as a very small portion of Jeffrey pine and white fir. A six-acre whitebark pine stand is located in the northwest corner of the project area and individual trees and clumps are found sporadically in most other areas. Aspen is located primarily east and north of Incline Lake in association with lodgepole pine. The whitebark pine has declined in health over the years due to diseases such as white pine blister rust and insects such as bark beetles. Densities vary with much of the rocky, open areas falling within the proposed backcountry where elevations climb to over 9,500 feet.
3.3.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
Evaluation of potential effects on forest vegetation is based on management activities as described in the proposed action. Proposed activities would modify current conditions within aspen stands, identified meadows, and the forested areas surrounding them. This analysis evaluates effects to coniferous vegetation and aspen stands based on stand densities, species composition, and stand health. Project activities that result in stand densities, species composition, or stand health that is less resilient to a stand replacing event such as wildfire, insect, or disease infestation would be considered significant. In addition, project activities that reduce the overall species viability of whitebark pine would be considered significant.
3.3.3 Analysis of Effects
3.3.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
There would be no direct effects on the aspen and coniferous vegetation in the project area. The forests would continue to increase in stand densities both by recruitment and growth of existing trees. In areas where the stand densities are already high and either at or approaching maximum occupancy for the forest type, there would be a reduction in growth and vigor and increase in mortality. Trees would become more stressed and more susceptible to insects and disease. Whitebark pine would continue to decline in health and have minimal opportunities for recruitment. Encroachment of conifer species within aspen and meadows would continue and decrease the ability of aspen to remain healthy and vigorous.
3.3.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
The proposed forest plan amendment to designate the area west of Third Creek as backcountry will not have an effect on vegetation resources. Vegetation management activities including fuels reduction, vegetation restoration, managed wildfire, re-vegetation, and prescribed burning
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 48 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
are suitable uses within backcountry. The LTBMU will still have the ability to maintain or improve the stand health, stand densities, and species composition of the area over time as re- entry into the area for vegetation treatments is needed. The existing Forest Plan desired conditions, strategies, and standards and guidelines for vegetation management activities already provide adequate protections for vegetation resources for all types of restoration and construction activities. The limitations on future facilities development in this area will protect sensitive species such as whitebark pine from the impacts of construction.
The trail and road maintenance and construction activities proposed in this project would have minimal effects to the forest vegetation. This is because the proposed upgrading and possible short reroutes of trails would generally avoid substantial tree removal of healthy trees other than snags or hazard trees. They would also only lead to removal of minor amounts of understory plants including shrubs or small diameter individuals of species that typically grow in dense stands such as lodgepole pine.
In areas where aspen and conifer trees are thinned and follow-up prescribed fire is potentially conducted, there would be a reduction in tree density and canopy cover. The reduction would vary depending on the area’s current condition and need for removal. Where stands of lodgepole pine are encroaching into the meadow or within aspen stands, most if not all of the lodgepole would be removed. This would result in a regeneration of the aspen vegetation in the areas of lodgepole removal. In open areas and the stands along the meadow edges, residual densities would be at or below about 30 percent canopy cover after thinning and burning. In upland areas that are already open, very few trees would be removed. Residual canopy cover in other areas would range between 30 percent and 40 percent.
Openings approximately 1/10 of an acre in size may be created in pockets of dead and dying whitebark pine or other tree species in order to recruit healthy trees by planting or allowing natural regeneration to occur. Damage to residual trees may occur from prescribed burning including scorching from convective heat or direct flame contact. This may result in charring of the bark boles of the trees and mortality of the lower branches. Scorch or mortality of trees may occur in isolated areas (one or a few trees) to small patches up to approximately 1/10 of an acre in size.
Overall resulting stand structure and species composition would not change from the current condition to a level that alters the overall seral class or distribution of the species in the project area. Species composition would continue to include the current mix of species with a reduction mainly of lodgepole pine and unhealthy trees including whitebark pine. Residual stand structure would be a healthier component of dominant and co-dominant overstory trees with some scattered smaller trees and pockets of regeneration.
The stand structure for aspen would be residual dominant and codominant aspen after the elimination of most if not all conifers that are encroaching into aspen stands. There would also be areas of regenerating aspen where openings were created. The resulting stand health, species composition, and stand densities from project activities would be improved and would have increased resiliency to a stand replacing event such as wildfire, insect, and disease. The
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 49 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
effects to aspen stands and coniferous vegetation would be less than significant. The removal of mainly unhealthy whitebark pine will improve the overall species viability in the project area, as well. There will be a less than significant effect to whitebark pine viability.
3.3.4 Cumulative Effects
The direct and indirect effects from project activities are less than significant on vegetation resources. The Incline Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project also has less than significant effects to vegetation resources. Both projects aim to reduce stand densities initially with a gradual increase over time from the growth of residual trees and recruitment from openings that are created. Project activities are not expected to result in multiple treatments within the same geographic area. Areas that were thinned under the Incline Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project would already have resulted in stands and canopy cover densities at the desired levels and would not require additional thinning. Both projects have the goal of improving forest health and contain design features that limit the type and amount of thinning to be conducted, especially in sensitive areas. The cumulative changes to stand density, stand health, and species composition will result in increased resiliency to a stand replacing event such as wildfire, insects, and disease, and would result in less than significant cumulative effects to vegetation resources.
3.3.5 Analytical Conclusions
The proposed action would result in stand conditions similar to current conditions, but at slightly lower densities. The removal of conifers or aspen within aspen stands would help restore aspen communities by eliminating competition of resources such as water and sunlight and allow for recruitment of aspen seedlings. Conifer forests located throughout the project area would have limited treatment focusing on removal of unhealthy trees, especially whitebark pine, with openings created to allow recruitment of healthier trees. Areas to the west in higher elevations would have little need for tree removal given the already open condition of most of the stands. Treatments will prevent the conifer forests from continued decline in growth and vigor and increase in mortality. Treatments will improve whitebark pine health and opportunities for recruitment. Cumulative effects from the Incline Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project are less than significant. There will be less than significant effects to vegetation resources from the proposed activities.
With the no-action alternative, conifer forests would continue to increase in stand densities both by recruitment and growth of existing trees. In areas where the stand densities are already high and either at or approaching maximum occupancy for the forest type, there would be a continued decline in growth and vigor and increase in mortality. Trees would become more stressed and more susceptible to insects and disease. Whitebark pine would continue to decline in health and have less opportunities for recruitment. Encroachment of confer species within aspen and meadows would continue and decrease ability of aspen to remain healthy and vigorous.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 50 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.4 Hydrology and Soils 3.4.1 Background
TMDL Monitoring in Lake Tahoe
In 2011, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the Lake Tahoe TMDL, developed jointly by California and Nevada. The Tahoe TMDL was established because of excessive sediment and nutrient loading to Lake Tahoe, and subsequent impacts to Lake Tahoe water clarity. Based on the TMDL analysis, upland sources (for instance, forested lands such as the project area) are estimated to contribute 9 percent of the sediment and 26 percent of the phosphorus, and 15.5 percent of the nitrogen loading to the lake (TMDL, 2010). The Forest Service is the primary land manager of forested lands in the Tahoe Basin.
Under the TMDL, the Forest Service is required to report annually on actions taken to achieve TMDL milestones for upland source categories on Forest Service-managed lands. The TMDL regulatory agencies (Lahontan RWQCB and NDEP) will use select metrics within the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) performance measures tracking and reporting program to evaluate progress for upland sources areas. The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit will continue to provide data to the EIP performance measure tracking and reporting program. The following EIP performance measures will be reported related to projects implemented under this project: miles of road inspected and maintained, miles of roads retrofitted, and number of parcels with storm water retrofits.
The Forest Service has developed National Guidance for the planning, design, and implementation of soil, water and riparian resource protection best management practices (BMPs) (Forest Service, 2012). In addition, Region 5 of the Forest Service has developed guidance for additional soil and water protection BMPs (Forest Service, 2011). This guidance provides the foundation for managing Forest Service activities in a manner that is protective of soil, water, and riparian resources. The BMP guidance that is relevant to actions described in the proposed action is presented in Appendix A.
The Forest Service also conducts annual BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring, currently using Draft National Monitoring Protocols (Forest Service, 2015). This annual monitoring is applied to a subset of all Forest Service management activities, through a random selection process. All ground-disturbing activities described in the proposed action would be part of the sample pool for random selection for monitoring. Monitoring results are tracked in a national database, and are reported annually on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit website.
Historic Activities in the Project Area
Lidar and other geospatial data revealed that the management area and its contributing watershed have the physiographic characteristics (for instance, steep hillslope, valley slopes, and erosive geologic units) that render this watershed sensitive to thunderstorm flashfloods
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 51 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
with power to generate sediment that can be transported all the way to Lake Tahoe. Historic impacts (clear-cut logging and grazing) a century ago increased this vulnerability. Since that time vegetative cover has recovered, however the occurrence of flash flood in 1965 suggests that watershed-wide erosive potential still exists.
Remnant disturbance features (identified in 2010 and 2015 field surveys) on Third Creek continue to exist today and impact hydrologic function locally. The feature with highest potential to damage water and soil resources is the diversion ditch that was created to provide water to Incline Lake. The bottom of the ditch near the old diversion point on Third Creek is lower than the elevation of Third Creek itself and threatens to capture the water flowing into Third Creek should the channel shift to the east. That capture could then enhance head cut erosion downstream near the historic Incline Lake bed and threaten a wet meadow fen area, which has existing head cut features that probably originated off the ditch. There are also six head cuts on the main stem of Third Creek that result in disconnected hydrologic connectivity of the creek.
Since the Forest Service has acquired the property, a system of user-created trails now exists. These trails cross stream channels and sensitive soils and without proper BMPs and regular maintenance, could cause some fine sediments to enter stream courses over time.
The following methodologies were used in preparing this analysis:
Water/Flows/Channel Condition: Analysis involved review of historic reports, sequential aerial photo review, Lidar digital elevation model review, and other GIS data, to evaluate changes in hydrologic connectivity and threats to hydrologic function in the Incline Management Area.
Water quality: Analysis looks at actions to increase resiliency of stream channels and wet meadow/fen areas, and mitigation of potential inputs of fine sediment/nutrients to Lake Tahoe, as a result of proposed action.
3.4.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
Water and soil analysis was conducted evaluate short- and long-term trends of current watershed condition to judge whether or not the proposed action would lead to impacts on two important factors to hydrology:
1. Would the project increase the risk of water quality impacts downstream? 2. Would the project impact floodplains or wetlands? 3. Would the project affect existing water rights?
Project activities that would increase the risk of water quality impacts downstream, decrease the quantity or quality of floodplains or wetlands, or affect existing water rights would be considered significant.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 52 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.4.3 Analysis of Effects
3.4.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative, current conditions and management would persist. There would be no direct effects to soil and water quality under this alternative. Indirect effects resulting from existing conditions could result in on-going soil erosion and impacts to water quality both in Third Creek and in Lake Tahoe.
3.4.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
The actions proposed to improve water and soil condition and function (for instance, repair head cuts, stabilize erosion, fen restoration) total about 0.75 acres of work in and around stream channels and sensitive soils. Trail upgrades would occur on 1.45 acres of soil already impacted by users. Trails proposed for adoption, upgrading, and possible relocation currently cut through sensitive soils totaling 0.9 acres. The restoration activities would beneficially increase vegetative cover, promote sediment storage, and improve water flow and ground water characteristics in treated areas over the long term.
Any work done in these sensitive areas would result in a short-term fine sediment release. BMPs proposed in Appendix A would limit the impact on water quality, floodplains, and wetlands. However, observation from similar types of actions suggests that noticeable sediment suspension in the water would occur for a few hours after completing a treatment, and be noticeable a short distance downstream (roughly 100 feet). This impact is considered short in duration and scope and will not result in significant short- or long-term impacts to hydrologic resources. When compared to the effects that evidence has shown can result from natural watershed activities over a much longer period of time, the project activities are expected to have less than significant direct and indirect effects to water quality and less than significant effects to the quantity and quality of floodplains and wetlands.
Vegetation management actions near sensitive soils would occur on 541 acres using hand treatments. Vegetation management occurring on sensitive soils would occur on roughly 16 acres or 15 percent of the 107 sensitive soil acres. Since vegetation management work would be conducted using hand thinning methods over several years, no impacts to water quality are expected due to use of water quality protection BMPs, the small project area, and the distance from Lake Tahoe. There would be no impacts to floodplains or wetlands because most of the work would be conducted outside those vegetation types. Areas proposed for vegetation management and sensitive soils/vegetation types overlap, however the treatment unit layout team would include a hydrologist to ensure protection in those areas.
The proposed forest plan amendment will have no effect on hydrologic resources. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of water quality, wetlands, and floodplains apply to all management areas, including the backcountry management area. Limiting future development of facilities in this area will help protect the streams, groundwater, and other hydrologic resources in the area from future construction impacts.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 53 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
The project would have no effect on water rights.
3.4.4 Cumulative Effects
The direct and indirect effects to water quality, floodplains, wetlands, from project activities would be less than significant. There would be no effect to water rights. When these effects are considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects the cumulative effects are considered to be less than significant. Project activities would not increase the risk of water quality impacts downstream, would not decrease the quantity or quality of floodplains or wetlands, or affect existing water rights.
3.4.5 Analytical Conclusions
Project activities would not increase the risk to water quality, due to small project areas and distance from Lake Tahoe. The project would have beneficial effects to floodplains and wetlands by conducting repairs that promote natural hydrologic function. The projects activities would only generate localized short-term less-than-significant impacts to water quality, the effects of which are limited by the project size and the use of water management BMPs. Over the long term there would be beneficial impacts due to the increase in riparian vegetation and stream channel stability. The indirect, direct, and cumulative effects to hydrologic resources from project activities are less than significant.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 54 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.5 Heritage Resources 3.5.1 Background
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires that Federal agencies take into account the effects that their undertakings could have on properties listed on or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This effects assessment is accomplished through inventory, evaluation, and determination of effects in under the terms of the Section 106 process, the public, and pertinent Native American Tribes.
3.5.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to “take into account the effects of their undertakings on properties that could be eligible to the National Register of Historic Places”. In many cases, the Federal agencies comply with the NHPA through the Section 106 process. In Region 5, the Forest Service has negotiated an alternative process to the Section 106 process for projects that can be implemented without affecting historic properties. This process is documented in the “Programmatic Agreement Among The U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties By the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region” (PA).
Review of the proposed action and project maps resulted in the determination that all of the activities proposed could be approved under the provisions of the Programmatic Agreement stipulation 7.4 (a) and (b). Much of the project area had been previously surveyed and the Incline Dam and associated features had been evaluated and determined to not be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The remainder of the project has been surveyed and resources recorded. These resources would be protected using standard protection measures found in Appendix E of the Programmatic Agreement. These measures are enumerated in the approval documentation of the Programmatic Agreement and Appendix A.
3.5.3 Analysis of Effects
3.5.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
The no-action alternative would not result in management activity and would have no direct or indirect effects to heritage resources.
3.5.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
Each of the proposed activities can be authorized under provisions of the Programmatic Agreement without having an effect on historic properties or heritage resources. Activities
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 55 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
related to upkeep and maintenance of roads, trails, and facilities would adhere to standard protection measures found in Appendix E of the PA and enumerated in Appendix A.
3.5.4 Analysis of Cumulative Effects
The project would not result in direct or indirect effects to historic properties, therefore there would be no cumulative effects.
3.5.5 Analytical Conclusions
The project would not result in direct, or indirect effects to historic properties. There would be no effects to accumulate with past, present, and other reasonably foreseeable future projects (Appendix C).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 56 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.6 Botanical Resources and Invasive Plants 3.6.1 Background
Botanical species and habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act; species designated by the Forest Service as sensitive in Region 5 of the NFS; and other botanical resources including special habitats and sensitive communities have the potential to be negatively affected as a result of project activities. Project activities can increase the risk of the introduction and spread of invasive plants. This analysis discloses the extent of these potential effects.
Analysis focuses on special status species (for instance, federally threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate or Forest Service sensitive) because these have been evaluated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service and deemed to be at risk from management activities. Effects to botanical resources are analyzed in detail in the project’s Biological Evaluation of Botanical Species and Other Botanical Resource Assessment (Project Record).
3.6.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
The following botanical resources are considered in this analysis: 1) Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate and Forest Service Sensitive botanical species (TEPCS); 2) special habitats and uncommon plant communities; and 3) Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Watch List botanical species. Only those TEPCS species with occurrences or known suitable habitats on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit were considered. Only those special habitat or uncommon plant communities referenced by TRPA or in the forest plan were considered.
The botanical analysis area for the Incline Lake Management Area is the same as the project area and determined the spatial area for botanical surveys and project effects analysis.
Effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive (TEPCS) species are measured with respect to the scale and scope of potential impact. The scale, or extent, of potential impact is described by the number and/or acres of known botanical element occurrences (EO) and botanical resources (special habitats, sensitive communities) that coincide with the proposed project area.
Effects are also considered with respect to the scope of the proposed activities. Scope considers the character of potential impacts that could occur. Scope of impact considers the effects of the specific activity within the scale (location or context) of that activity. Analysis of the scope of impact considers the number of known occurrences of TEPCS botanical species which coincide with various site types of the proposed action. This analysis considers the intensity of potential impacts from each component of the proposed action.
Analysis of potential risks of invasive plant introduction and spread, associated with the proposed action considers inventory, known infestations, habitat vulnerability, project- and non- project-related vectors; as well as project- and non-project-related habitat disturbance.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 57 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Impacts from project activities that reduce the number and/or acres of known botanical element occurrences within the project area to a level that results in a decrease in species viability or would lead to Federal listing, or reduce the scale or diminish the character of botanical resources in the project area would be considered significant. Project activities that have an unacceptable risk of the introduction or spread of invasive species would also be considered significant.
3.6.3 Analysis of Effects
3.6.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative, current conditions and management would persist. There would be no direct effects to botanical resources or invasive plant species under this alternative. Indirect effects resulting from the continuation of existing conditions could result in on-going persistence and spread of invasive species from existing occurrences.
3.6.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
Effects to TEPCS Species
There are no federally threatened, endangered, or proposed botanical species known to occur or with known suitable habitat within Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, so none would be affected. There is one candidate species, whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), which is known to occur on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and whitebark pine does intersect the proposed action area.
Of the 28 Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) botanical species known to occur or with known suitable habitat within Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands, there are only two species known to occur in the analysis area: Bolander’s candle moss (Bruchia bolanderi) and Tahoe draba (Draba asterophora var. asterophora).
Based upon the scale and scope of the proposed action, there are six Forest Service Sensitive botanical occurrences: two Tahoe draba and four Bolander’s candle moss (of 106 known occurrences across all 28 FSS species, within Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands). Of these six FSS botanical occurrences, two FSS occurrences of Tahoe draba comprise 0.38 acres and four FSS occurrences of Bolander’s candle moss comprise 2 acres (of 226 total acres of FSS botanical species within Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands). Overall 2.38 acres of these six FSS occurrences intersect the general project area and would potentially be impacted by proposed project activities.
Proposed activities coincide with known Tahoe draba or Bolander’s candle moss occurrences. Project activities in these locations may adversely affect these occurrences but not result in a decrease in species viability or lead to Federal listing.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 58 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Sensitive plant communities occur in the analysis area. Specifically, there are five fens in the analysis area (of 51 known fens across Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands). Proposed activities coincide with known fens or other special aquatic features (for example, unconfirmed fens). Project activities such as road maintenance in these locations may adversely affect these occurrences. Project design features include water quality and construction BMPs to limit impacts to these special aquatic features. However, there may be undetected occurrences of special aquatic features at risk of impact. If special aquatic features are identified within a proposed activity area, measures would be implemented to avoid negative impacts (Section 2.4).
Botanical surveys are current for the Incline Management Plan analysis area. Botanical surveys occurred during the summer of 2016. Botanical surveys occurred in all potential habitats, during the appropriate phenological identification timeframes for each FSS botanical species. Dominant habitat types included potential habitats for FSS including wetlands (for example, fens, wet meadow, dry meadow, seeps, springs) and mixed conifer forest, and rock outcrops.
Among all the proposed activites, roads and trails are the types of activites that represent the greastest risk of direct impacts to TEPCS plants, lichen and fungi, as well the the greatest potential to degrade suitable habitat. However, road and trail maintenance, construction, or decommissioning activities would not permanently reduce or degrade sensitive plant habitat. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for road and trail decomissioning and stream crossings would likely improve or stabilize existing degradation to potential habitats of FSS Bolander’s candle moss.
There is current survey data for the project area, however, there may be undetected occurrences of TEPCS botanical species at risk of impact. If TEPCS species are identified within a proposed activity area, measures would be implemented to avoid negative impacts. Project- specific criteria and design features ensure TEPCS species are identified prior to project implementation and measures to prevent negative impacts are applied.
Non-motorized trail construction providing pedestrian access would potentially affect Bolander’s candle moss with unintended off-trail pedestrial travel. Resource protection barriers would discourage pedestrian access to sensitive habitat, such as fens and other special aquatic features supporting FSS sensitive Bolander’s candle moss.
A potentially postive effect for FSS Tahoe draba and Bolander’s candle moss may occur from the proposed backcountry management designation, as FSS botanical conservation may be conducive to dispersed recreation use and more limited travel.
Habitat restoration and hydrologic activities would have a positive affect on Bolander’s candle moss, once the proposed activities are in completion. Fens and other special aquatic features would be positively affected by stable water flow. Fens provide suitable habitat for FSS botanical species, including Bolander’s candle moss. Restored fens would potentially increase acres of habitat suitability for FSS botanical species.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 59 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Meadow and fen restoration would benefit from conifer thinning to reduce water and nutrient competition in favor of wetland features, thus promoting potential habitat for FSS botanical species. Further, whitebark pine management activities would not affect Tahoe draba or Bolander’s candle moss. However, managing for whitebark pine through thinning/burning, pruning, and seed/cone collection would promote health and regeneration of this FSS botanical species.
Whitebark pine management would benefit this species through invigorating and retaining healthly stands. Further, whitebark pine would improve in condition and expand through reduction of competiting shade tolerant trees. This increased vigor of whitebark pine would improve resistence and resilience to mountain pine beetle attacks. Further, pruning trees with whitebark pine rust cankers would increase survival and longevity and reduce spread of rust in trunk and other branches. Planting of whitebark pine seeds and seedlings would benefit regeneration. Furthermore, cone/seed collection for future genetic testing with the purpose of future planting would support longeveity of healthy, genetically diverse and resilient whitebark pine stands.
The proposed forest plan amendment to designate the area west of Third Creek as backcountry would have no effect on TEPCS species or special status habitats. The area area currently only supports dispersed recreation and has limited infrastructure. The preclusion of developed facilities in backcountry will help to protect these species and habitas in the future from construction impacts.
Overall the project would not reduce the number and/or acres of known botanical element occurrences within the project area to a level that results in a decrease in species viability or would lead to Federal listing, or reduce the scale or diminish the character of botanical resources in the project area. The project would result in less than significant effects on botanical resources.
Effects on Invasive Plant Species Inventory for invasive plants was conducted in summer 2016 for the Incline Management Plan analysis area. Therefore, the inventory is considered sufficient and one infestation was identified in the proposed activity area. If additional invasive plants are identified in activity areas they would be avoided or treated prior to implementation. Current inventory and invasive plant treatment for any new infestations would minimize introduction and spread of invasive plant species.
Of the 733 known infestations on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit-managed lands, only one infestation (less than 1 percent) intersects the project area). There is less than 0.1 acre of known invasive plant infestation that intersects the project area.
Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) is a high priority invasive plant species of management concern at Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit which is defined as a species with the potential to have a large ecological impact or invasive potential and as a species that is easily controlled.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 60 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
The scope and scale of the project encompasses a disproportionately high area of wetland and mountainous, conifer forest habitats. The proposed project area does have ground disturbance from roads, trails, and previous dam installation. This ground disturbance increases compacted and eroded soil which contributes to susceptibility to plant invasion. Roads and trails are primary sources for movement of invasive plants and represent a high risk of a non-project- related vector. Use and maintenance of these areas increases the risk of spread and introduction of invasive plants. Road and trail maintenance may necessitate the use of imported materials or equipment which represent the greatest vector for invasive plant introduction. Project design features require certification of imported materials to be free of invasive plants, plant materials, and seed. Project activities represent a moderate risk of project-related vector for introduction and spread of invasive plants.
Overall, the proposed activity area is considered to have a low habitat vulnerability with respect to invasive plant introduction and spread.
The scope and scale of the project encompasses road and trails. Further, there is a larger portion in the project area of undisturbed backcountry. Project-related habitat disturbance for this project is considered moderate. This is considered acceptable risk and project activities would result in less than a significant effect to the spread or introduction of invasive species.
3.6.4 Cumulative Effects
This project would not result in significant direct or indirect negative impacts to botanical resources, or result in significant negative effects associated with invasive plant species. When these effects are considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the cumulative effects are considered to be less than significant.
3.6.5 Analytical Conclusions
Based on existing survey data there is a low percentage of TEPCS occurrence and acres that intersect the project area.
Project-specific criteria and design features ensure TEPCS species are identified prior to project implementation and measures to prevent negative impacts are applied. Restoration activities, meadow restoration activities, and vegetation management activities would have an overall positive effect on TEPCS species, special status habitats, and FSS species. The project would not reduce the number and/or acres of known botanical element occurrences within the project area to a level that results in a decrease in species viability or would lead to Federal listing, or reduce the scale or diminish the character of botanical resources in the project area. The project would result in less than significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on botanical resources.
Implementation of the project represents a moderate risk for invasive plant introduction and spread, although application of best management practices would minimize this risk. Project activities are concentrated on existing roads and trails, which represent disturbed areas near
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 61 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences known weed infestations or areas vulnerable to weed introduction or spread. Best management practices would be utilized to avoid or treat any identified invasive plant infestations during project activity. These measures manage the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread to a level considered less than significant, but do not fully eliminate it.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 62 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.7 Terrestrial Wildlife 3.7.1 Background
The analysis below describes environmental consequences to federally and regionally listed species.
The analysis area supports Forest Service Sensitive Species, and migratory birds. According to the USFWS IPAC list for this project (Consultation code 08ENVD00-2018-SLI-0198) the only terrestrial wildlife Federally Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, or Proposed species or Critical Habitat that could be found in this area is the North American wolverine. The analysis area (6,756 acres) encompasses the entire project area plus a one mile buffer. The one-mile buffer was selected because it encompasses known species occurrences adjacent to the project area, most of the Incline Creek northern goshawk Protected Activity Center (PAC), and all potentially suitable habitat for riparian-associated species (for example, willow flycatcher) downstream of the project area as well as the transition zone to drier habitat conditions.
3.7.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
Indicators for Effects to Endangered Species Act Listed Species (TEPC species)
Section 7 (c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) provides specific protection of identified species and habitat. Species lists are based on the FWS IPAC lists for the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit requested on 11 April, 2018 (USFWS; consultation code 8ENVD00-2018-SLI-0198). Only the North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) (Proposed Threatened) from this list was identified as possibly being affected by project activities. Project activities that result in a decrease in species viability or would lead to Federal listing would be considered a significant effect to TEPC species.
Indicators for Effects to Forest Service Sensitive Species
Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670.32) provide direction regarding Forest Service sensitive species (FSS species):
1. Review programs and activities as part of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 process through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. 2. Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. 3. Analyze, if impacts cannot be avoided, the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. The forest plan provides additional management direction regarding nonstructural wildlife habitat management (pgs. 112-115, 117-119, and C-1-C-2). Project activities that result in a decrease in species viability or would lead to Federal listing would be considered to have a significant effect to FSS Species.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 63 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sensitive Species list was last updated on, July 3, 2013, and includes:
• Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis) • Willow flycatcher (Empidinax traillii) • Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) • Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) • California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) • Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) • Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) • Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) • North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) • Pacific marten (Martes caurina) • Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis)
Indicators for Effects to Migratory Landbird Conservation
Provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that apply to the Forest Service are described in Section 1.9. Project activities that adversely impact migratory landbird species or their associated habitats would be considered to have a significant effect.
3.7.3 Analysis of Effects
3.7.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative current conditions and management would persist. There would be no direct or indirect effects to terrestrial wildlife.
3.7.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
Effects to Endangered Species Act Listed Species The following threatened species was considered:
North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus) (Proposed Threatened)
On February 28, 2008, a detection of a lone male wolverine occurred approximately 14 to 19 miles northwest of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit near Truckee, California. This was the first verified record of a wolverine in California since 1922. Agency biologists and researchers used genetic samples (for instance, hair and scat) to determine that the wolverine was most closely related to, and most likely came from, a population on the western edge of the Rocky Mountains rather than either the historic California population (compared to samples taken from museum specimens) or contemporary northern Cascades (Washington) population
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 64 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
(Moriarty et al. 2009). This attempted dispersal event may represent a continuation of the wolverine expansion in the contiguous United States and other wolverines may have traveled to the Sierra Nevada and remain undetected (USFWS 2013). However, there is no evidence that Lake Tahoe currently hosts a wolverine population or that female wolverines have made, or are likely to make, similar dispersal movements (USFWS 2013). There are no current known occurrences on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. There is wolverine habitat on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Because this species is not known to currently occur on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and effects to its habitat are not anticipated, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service is not necessary at this time. There is no anticipated effect to any TEPC species from project activities.
Effects to Forest Service Sensitive Species There are approximately 2,200 acres of northern goshawk habitat and one Protected Activity Center (PAC) within the analysis area. The most recent activity in this PAC was in 2014 when at least two birds were detected. However, the reproductive status was undetermined. The last known reproductive effort in this PAC was in 1998, though the outcome was unknown. Suitable habitat within the project area was surveyed in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2015. The Incline Creek goshawk PAC was surveyed in 2009, 2010, 2014 and 2015. No goshawk were detected within the project area. There were goshawk detected within the PAC in 2014 however no nesting activity was found.
The total amount of willow flycatcher habitat is uncertain due to the recent dewatering of Incline Lake. There is at least 180 acres, but that amount may be increasing due to new willow growth in the previous lake footprint and an increase in water downstream that would have previously been retained in the lake. The project area is at a higher elevation than willow flycatcher would be expected, and surveys in 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 indicate willow flycatcher were not found in the project area.
The analysis area is more than one mile from a large lake and therefore outside of potential bald eagle nesting habitat.
There are approximately 2,800 acres of California spotted owl habitat within the analysis area. There are no known active spotted owl territories on the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Surveys were conducted in 2009, 2010, 2012, and 2013 within the project area but no detections occurred.
Depending on the species there are between 634 and 446 acres of habitat for sensitive bat species within the analysis area. There are no detections or known roosts of sensitive bat species within the analysis area, however, surveys have not been conducted.
Pacific marten foraging habitat is widespread throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. There are 1,865 acres of Pacific marten denning habitat but only one detection and no known dens within the analysis area. Three camera station surveys were conducted, one in 2005 and two in 2014. These surveys did not detect marten.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 65 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Western bumble bee habitat within the analysis area would consist of all areas where there are flowering plants. There are no known recent detections of western bumble bee within the analysis area.
Great gray owl and North American wolverine are not known to occur on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit therefore these species would not be affected by this project and would not be further addressed.
For all FSS species found within the analysis area, the proposed project has the potential to cause disturbance type effects from the noise and presence of equipment and workers. These effects would be minor and would be limited to the time of implementation due to the limited geographic extent of project activities, the project design features that prevent disturbance to reproducing individuals, and the expected phasing of implementation that limits the impact from activities in any given year.
Project activities may positively alter willow flycatcher habitat by improving riparian condition. There may be a short-term impact to western bumble bee habitat, but over the long-term habitat would be increased. The amount of altered willow flycatcher and western bumble bee habitat would not be of an amount that would be noticeable when considered with reference to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit population as a whole. Project activities are not expected to alter habitat for any other sensitive species. Project activities would not impact the viability of any FSS species or lead to Federal listing. Further information on these species within the analysis area can be found in the Incline Acquisition Management Plan Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (Project Record).
The proposed forest plan amendment to designate the area west of Third Creek as backcountry would have no effect on FSS species. The area area currently only supports dispersed recreation and has limited infrastructure. The preclusion of developed facilities in backcountry will help to protect these species and their habitas in the future from construction impacts.
Effects to Migratory Landbird Conservation Likely impacts to habitats and select migratory bird populations resulting from the Incline Acquisition Management Plan have been assessed in detail within the project BA/BE and considered in the project Migratory Bird Report (Project Record).
Potential impacts to migratory species would be minimized through the adherence to forest plan standards and guidelines for snags/down woody debris, limited ground disturbance, and maintenance of canopy closure requirements. The project is designed to improve habitat conditions by improving riparian habitats, while still maintaining current functional habitat. Additionally, habitat would be improved by installing BMPs on trails and roads that would reduce sources of erosion. The project would not adversely impact migratory landbird species or their associated habitats.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 66 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.7.4 Cumulative Effects
This project would not result in significant direct or indirect negative impacts to terrestrial wildlife (TEPCS) species or habitats. When these effects are considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects the cumulative effects are considered to be less than significant.
3.7.5 Analytical Conclusions
The project would improve habitat conditions by improving riparian habitats, while still maintaining current functional habitat. There would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species (TEPC), Forest Service sensitive species, or migratory landbirds from project activities due to the scope of the project actions, phasing of project implementation, and design features applied to each proposed action component.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 67 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.8 Aquatic Wildlife Resources 3.8.1 Background
Aquatic species rely on multiple aquatic habitats to fulfill various life history requirements including both lotic (stream) and lentic (wetland/marsh, lake, and pond) habitat. Many fish species may depend on two or more habitats during their annual or lifetime cycles (Moyle et al. 2013). For example, the adult stage of the native speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus) and Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi), require cold, clean, gravel habitat that is well oxygenated for reproduction and warm shallow water with cover such as large wood, boulders or emergent vegetation as juveniles (fry) (Moyle 2002). Amphibian species such as the native Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs (Rana sierrae), will utilize both lentic and lotic habitat as adults but typically rely on lentic habitat for reproduction.
The project area contains multiple habitat types including 1.5 miles of perennial stream, 1.3 mile of spring fed flow paths, and 230 acres of stream environment zone (SEZ) (including wet meadow, fen and riparian habitat) (Figure 4). It provides suitable habitat for native amphibians and fish including Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs (federally endangered) and Lahontan cutthroat trout (federally threatened).
Although no Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs have been detected, the project area contains approximately 218 acres of suitable habitat (Figure 4), as defined in the Programmatic Biological Opinion (December 19, 2014, Ref #:FFO8ESMFOO-2014-F-0557) and described in more detail in the Aquatic Biological Evaluation and Assessment (Project Record) and provides breeding habitat for western toads (Anaxyrus boreas).
Visual encounter surveys for amphibians and reptiles have been initiated in the majority of the project area and will be completed in the 2018 field season. To date, no Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frogs have been found. The presence of non-native trout precludes the establishment of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs due to predation by the trout of the frog eggs and tadpoles.
Lahontan cutthroat trout are not known to occur in the project area; however, Third Creek has been identified in the stream priority matrix developed by the Tahoe Basin Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Recovery Implementation Team (TBRIT) as a potential recovery stream for the species. Recovery actions would include removing non-native trout from Third Creek and associated tributaries and installing a permanent fish management structure near the mouth of Third Creek. There are also five aquatic organism barriers on Third Creek downstream of the project area that limit and/or eliminate migration opportunities upstream. These action needed to remove these barriers to aquatic organism passage are outside the scope of this project but would be needed to restore Lahontan cutthroat trout and associated habitat in the project area.
Fish assessments of 27 streams around the Lake Tahoe basin were completed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit) from 2007 through 2014 as part of the Basin-wide Native Nongame Fish Assessment Project. This multi-year survey effort found that Third Creek was dominated by a single non-native trout (Table 3 through Table 5).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 68 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Table 3. Total catches of native fish species in Third Creek during the basin-wide native nongame fish assessment project from 2007-2014.
Native Species Number of catches Lahontan cutthroat trout 0 Lahontan redside shiner 0 Lahontan tui chub 0 Mountain sucker 0 Mountain whitefish 0 Paiute sculpin 0 Speckled dace 0 Tahoe sucker 0 Table 4. Total catches of non-native game species in Third Creek during the basin-wide native nongame fish assessment project from 2007-2014.
Non-native Game Species Number of catches Brook trout 1,290 Brown trout 0 Rainbow trout 0
Table 5. Total catches of non-native invasive species in Third Creek during the basin-wide native nongame fish assessment project from 2007-2014.
Non-native Invasive Species Number of catches Bluegill 0 Brown bullhead 0 Goldfish 0
There are eight identified head cuts along Third Creek and potential head cuts along the spring fed flow paths along the southern portion of the project area (Figure 4). The flow pattern of Third Creek was altered by the construction of a ditch in 1939, which was intended to move water from Third Creek into the meadow area. These head cuts and ditches reduce water available to Third Creek, decrease bank stability, and increase erosion.
There are currently 1.3 miles of system non-motorized trails, 5 miles of user-created trails, 1.25 miles of road, and three stream crossings. Approximately 1.5 miles of the trail and road system overlap with suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Trails and road that are adjacent to or intersect aquatic habitat can degrade the quality and quantity of habitat by increasing erosion into waterbodies and decreasing bank stability. Erosion caused by bank instability can reduce available spawning habitat, increase water temperature, and decrease dissolved oxygen.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 69 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Figure 5. Project Area and Aquatic Resources in Project Area
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 70 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.8.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
Indicators for Effects on Aquatic Habitat
Environmental consequences of the proposed action will be analyzed based on changes to the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat. The quantity of habitat is measured by the total amount of habitat available to meet the various life history requirements (spawning (spring), embryo development (summer), rearing (late summer/fall)). The quantity of habitat is correlated to the duration, timing and extent of surface water. Habitat quality is measured by the habitat’s characteristics, including water quality, connectivity, and complexity. Changes to the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat that would reduce the viability of TEPCS species or native aquatic species or lead to Federal Listing would be considered a significant effect.
Habitat quality is based on the following parameters and associated supporting direction from the forest plan:
1. Complex and diverse habitat to meet various life history requirements of desired aquatic species. a. Manage stream reaches in the Forest to attain levels of stream shading which maintain cold water conditions from months of June – September when precipitation and stream flows are normally lowest ambient temperature are highest. Cold water conditions during June – September should target a maximum 7- day mean temperature of 20C or less (SG57). b. Reconnect floodplains with stream channels to enhance treatment of nutrients and contaminants, and improve channel geomorphic function to reduce in-channel sediment sources and increase channel sediment storage. c. Maintain, enhance, or restore the physical and biological characteristics of aquatic ecosystems. d. Manage stream reaches and associated habitat to support all life stages of native assemblages by providing aquatic organism passage for all life stages, stream conditions that provide spawning and rearing habitat such as appropriate pool/riffle ratio, substrate and large woody debris. 2. Water quality conditions support and perpetuate conditions to support life history requirements of desired aquatic species. e. Identify and implement restoration to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and maintain, restore or enhance habitat for riparian an aquatic species. f. Maintain, enhance, or restore the physical and biological characteristics of aquatic ecosystems. g. Reconnect floodplains with stream channels to enhance treatment of nutrients and contaminants, and improve channel geomorphic function to reduce in-channel sediment sources and increase channel sediment storage. h. Manage stream reaches in the Forest to attain levels of stream shading which maintain cold water conditions from months of June – September when
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 71 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
precipitation and stream flows are normally lowest ambient temperature are highest. Cold water conditions during June – September should target a maximum 7- day mean temperature of 20C or less (SG57). 3. Spatial and temporal connectivity of aquatic habitat that supports the unobstructed movement of desired aquatic species for survival, migration, and reproduction. i. Consider habitat connectivity for species that may be impacted due to climate change by removing or modifying physical impediments to movements. j. Seek opportunities to remove physical impediments to allow migration. k. Maintain and restore connectivity of aquatic habitats where barriers to aquatic organism passage have been identified or where natural surface and subsurface water flows are intercepted, diverted or disrupted in highest priority watersheds. l. Manage stream reaches and associated habitat to support all life stages of native assemblages by providing aquatic organism passage for all life stages, stream conditions that provide spawning and rearing habitat such as appropriate pool/riffle ratio, substrate and large woody debris, except where not appropriate.
3.8.3 Analysis of Effects
3.8.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative current conditions and management would persist. There would be no direct or indirect effects to aquatic wildlife.
3.8.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
Although there could be short-term impacts to habitat quality during implementation, the project design features and BMPs would be expected to prevent impacts to water quality, the complexity of aquatic habitat, and the spatial and temporal connectivity of aquatic species. Long-term effects are discussed below.
• How would the proposed action increase the complexity of aquatic habitat to meet various life history requirements of desired aquatic species?
Functioning habitat with diverse characteristics would improve by restoring channel morphology as a result of head cut repair, diversion ditch repair, and installing large wood, as well as through restoration and vegetation management activities that would revegetate degraded areas near Third Creek, meadows, and fens. There would be more water available in both lotic and lentic systems and a reduction in the sediment entering the stream. Large wood and vegetation would also create complex areas that fish and other aquatic species utilize for hiding and rest.
This in combination with actions proposed and analyzed under the Incline Dam Project would restore and/or enhance a variety of habitat types, including stream, pond, wetland and fen habitat, which is utilized by numerous aquatic species for life history requirements. Aquatic
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 72 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences species, specifically amphibians, could utilize stream, wetland, and pond habitat in the project area given the close proximity to each other.
• How would the proposed action improve water quality conditions to support and perpetuate conditions that support life history requirements of desired aquatic species?
The proposed head cut and ditch repair would have a minor positive effect on water quality locally, by restoring overbank flows and reducing head cut erosion potential. The use of native materials such as vegetation and logs would enhance bank stability, further reducing sediment in the stream channel. Additionally, vegetation would create stream shade and protect cold water conditions needed by native aquatic species.
Additionally, under the proposed action, the five miles of trail would be adopted (upgraded in place or re-routed) and at least three existing crossings would be upgraded. Therefore, these crossings would be designed and managed to insure they do not cause resource damage and have the appropriate level of maintenance when needed. Non-system (user-created) trails do not receive maintenance and can contribute to erosion in stream channels and bank instability. By adopting trails and associated crossings, habitat and water quality would be protected through annual or corrective maintenance.
• How would the proposed action improve the spatial and temporal connectivity of aquatic habitat that supports the unobstructed movement of desired aquatic species for survival, migration, and reproduction?
The proposed head cut repair would reduce the head cut plunge pool effect, which can be a barrier particularly at low flows. The existing head cuts are two to three feet high and the short sections of channel fill downstream would continue to increase the water depth in the pool without repair. This scenario holds true for the head cuts in fen wet meadow head cut zone as well. These head cuts would also continue to de-water the meadow and fen area. Obliterating the ditch would prevent the capture of Third Creek by the old incline lake diversion and improve connectivity in Third Creek.
Additionally, under the proposed action, the three existing crossings would be upgraded and would be located on system trails. Therefore, these crossings would be designed and managed to insure they support passage for aquatic-dependent species and have the appropriate level of maintenance when needed. Non-system (user-created) trails do not receive maintenance and can be a barrier to aquatic organisms. By adopting trails and associated crossings, habitat would be protected through annual or corrective maintenance that would maintain aquatic organism passage.
The proposed forest plan amendment to designate the area west of Third Creek as backcountry would have no effect on TEPCS species or native aquatic species habitat. Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the protection of aquatic species apply to all management areas, including the backcountry management area. The preclusion of developed facilities in backcountry will help to protect aquatic habitas in the future from construction impacts.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 73 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
Overall, the total amount of habitat available to meet the various life history requirements (spawning in spring, summer embryo development, and rearing in late summer/fall) would not decrease as a result of project activities. The duration, timing, and extent of surface water would not be affected by project activities. Water quality would be improved, connectivity, and complexity of habitat would be improved. There would be no changes to the quantity and quality of aquatic habitat that would reduce the viability of aquatic species or lead to Federal Listing and project activities would have less than a significant effect on aquatic organisms, including TEPCS species.
3.8.4 Cumulative Effects
This project would not result in significant direct or indirect negative impacts to aquatic wildlife (TEPCS) species or habitats. When these effects are considered in the context of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects the cumulative effects are considered to be less than significant.
3.8.5 Analytical Conclusions
The proposed action is expected to increase the overall quantity of quality aquatic habitat in the project area as compared to existing conditions by:
• Increasing the quantity of available habitat, by restoring head cuts and diversion ditches. • Increasing the quantity of complex and diverse habitats (lotic and lentic) that are hydrologically connected by upgrading existing stream crossings, utilizing large wood and vegetation to stabilize and enhance aquatic habitat and restoring head cuts that act as barriers during low flow conditions. • Increasing quantity and quality of complex and diverse habitat available for life history requirements of native species by increasing water availability, reducing sediment into aquatic habitat, and utilizing large wood and vegetation to stabilize and enhance aquatic habitat. • Improving the quality of habitat by improving water quality characteristics (for example, temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, reduced sedimentation).
There would be no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to any threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species (TEPCS) from project activities due to the scope of the project actions and design features applied to each proposed action component. Effects to aquatic species and resources are analyzed in detail in the project’s Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment (Project Record).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 74 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.9 Scenic Resources 3.9.1 Background
The project is located on steep terrain that limits views into and from the site. Lake Tahoe is only visible from a few short sections of trail on the north side of the project area. Third Creek and various perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels are located in the project area. Additional habitat includes multiple fens, meadows, and groundwater seeps. When standing water is not present, the footprint of the former Incline Lake becomes a wet meadow habitat popular for bird watching. The ridgeline along the western side of the property delineates the edge of Mt. Rose Wilderness area.
Existing facilities are noticeable but mostly visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. These facilities include a number of trails which access the site for dispersed recreation (hiking, dog walking, and mountain biking), as well as one gated access road (1.2 miles long) used for administrative purposes. One existing NFS trail (18E17) leaves from the access road and heads west into Mt. Rose Wilderness area. At this time, segments of trails pass directly through sensitive ecosystems, and several user-created structures cross over streams. A noticeable diversion ditch connects Third Creek to the former Incline Lake. The presence of muddy user- created trails and trampled vegetation currently found on the site detracts from the overall visual experience. Without regular maintenance, the trails and infrastructure in the area will continue to cause unsightly erosion, impact sensitive habitats, as well as cause a decline in overall visual aesthetics of the site
3.9.2 Indicators for Analysis of Effects
The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit forest plan assigns Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) to lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. The forest plan identifies three primary SIOs: very high, high, and moderate. Under the very high SIO, which is primarily assigned to designated wilderness areas, management activities should not be visually evident. Under the high SIO, the visual result of management activities should utilize characteristics of the landscapes’ line, form, color, texture, and massing to blend into the visual setting without creating visual contrast. Under the moderate SIO, the result of management activities should remain visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape visual character. The entire project site has a SIO of high.
The forest plan also assigns a Minimum Scenic Stability (MSS) to lands managed by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Scenic stability is the degree to which the valued landscape character and its scenery attributes can be sustained through time and ecological progression. The forest plan identifies three primary MSS ratings: high (appears unaltered), moderate (slightly altered), or low (moderately altered). The project site is identified as mostly high, with pockets of moderate around the former lake.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 75 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
The Forest Service’s Built Environment Image Guide (BEIG) is followed to ensure that constructed features compliment the naturally appearing setting. An example of these principles includes the utilization of natural-looking and native materials in construction.
The analysis of effects to scenic resources will determine the degree of potential effect of the action alternative on these indicators. Scenery alterations that reduce the existing SIO or MSS to more developed and altered classifications, or that are inconsistent with existing BEIG standards, would be considered significant.
3.9.3 Analysis of Effects
3.9.3.1 No Action – Alternative 1
Under the no-action alternative existing conditions and management direction would be unchanged. This alternative would have no effect on scenic resources and would be consistent with forest plan direction.
3.9.3.2 Proposed Action – Alternative 2
The designation of the area west of Third Creek as backcountry management area meets the management concept of natural landscapes, dispersed recreation use, and limited management. The approximately 5 miles of trails proposed for adoption are a suitable level of development for the backcountry and general forest classifications. Upgrades to these trails, including reroutes and elevation/replacement of boardwalks, would be in keeping with the existing and appropriate scale of development for the site. In addition to these improvements enhancing the aesthetics and functionality of trails, they would also mitigate resource damage being caused to habitat within the project site. The proposed improvements will benefit the aesthetic experience of the trails system. Stream crossings would be constructed with appropriate native materials that would blend with the site character and meet the requirements of the BEIG.
Though existing roads within the project area would remain, vehicular access would be blocked to the general public. Only the 1.25 miles of the dam access road would be maintained for administrative access. The permanent BMPs to be installed along this road would be meet Forest Service and TRPA guidelines, and can be designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape as much as possible. The proposed BMPs would also protect the surrounding environment from resource damage, and thus would help maintain the site’s high level of scenic stability. Eventually, this road would become part of a non-motorized and universally accessible loop trail that would overlook the former lake bed.
The plan to keep the trail and overlook sites outside of the former lakebed in an already disturbed location is preferable to constructing a more extensive boardwalk and trail system down into the lakebed itself. This maintains the natural beauty of the lakebed as it is restored to wetland, and limits disturbance to the wildlife that use the area. Additional resource protection barriers (be they natural or fencing) would be composed of materials that match the site
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 76 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
character and meet the BEIG. These barriers would not be major distractions from the surrounding views, and indeed should help preserve their integrity by limiting pedestrian access to sensitive areas of the site.
As for the other roads within the site, access to the Sierra Nevada Wood and Lumber Company Road (26WA9544) and the 0.2 miles of road that connects the highway to 18E40 would be blocked either with a gate or with boulders to prevent vehicular access. These blocks would cause minimal visual disturbance, and the roads would otherwise receive no enhancements that might detract from the site’s natural features.
Interpretive and wayfinding signage proposed for the site would have minimal impact to the surrounding area. When constructed with appropriate materials that meet the BEIG, these enhancements should draw only as much attention as is necessary to direct visitors.
Extensive restoration activities are planned for the site, including the removal of the dam diversion, restoration of channel morphology and habitat, revegetation of degraded areas, restoration of fens, and erosion repair work. All of these activities would help to mitigate damage caused by previous site management, and would restore the site to a state similar to that which existed prior to its development.
Vegetation management activities are anticipated to have a similar effect. Management for whitebark pine, reduction of conifer and upland species in the wet meadow and fen ecosystems, and vegetation treatments to restore aspen would further promote the site’s return to a more naturalized state, and would provide users exposure to rare and sensitive ecosystems located within the Tahoe basin. These activities should support and maintain the scenic integrity and scenic stability of the area over time.
The proposed forest plan amendment to designate the area west of Third Creek as backcountry would be consistent with and help maintain the scenic integrity and scenic stability of that area.
As a whole, the proposed action would not reduce SIO or MSS classifications, and would not require modification to be consistent with BEIG standards. There would be no perceptible effect to scenery when analyzed under these contexts.
3.9.4 Cumulative effects
There would be no perceptible effect to scenic resources resulting from this project. In considering cumulative effects, the current condition for scenic resources represents the effect of previous projects. When the effects of this project are considered with current conditions, and the addition of direct and indirect effects from other anticipated future projects, there are no anticipated cumulative effects to visual resources.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 77 Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences
3.9.5 Analytical Conclusions
Improvements to the roadways/pathways within the site may result in a small increase in overall infrastructure visible at the site, however these improvements are considered to be beneficial to the aesthetics of the site, would have no effect on existing SIO and MSS classifications, and would be consistent with current BIEG standards for the site.
The replacement of damaged user-created crossing structures, reduced trampling of vegetation and erosion as a result of improved trail management, and prevention of physical access to the most sensitive and attractive areas of the landscape while maintaining the view of these areas all support the scenic integrity and stability of the area. Restoration activities would result in a change in the appearance of the existing landscape and vegetation regimes, but these changes would support the existing and historical ecosystems present on the site, of which many are rare and sensitive. The overall visual experience of wet meadows, fens, and seeps would be maintained.
Project activities and the proposed forest plan amendment would not alter the site’s general scenic character, and is consistent with the forest plan direction for scenic resource management and with the established SIO and MSS ratings. There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to scenic resources.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 78 Chapter 4: Coordination and Consultation
Chapter 4 – Coordination and Consultation The following individuals, agencies, and organizations were consulted during the preparation of this document.
4.1 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Interdisciplinary Team
• Ashley Sibr, Landscape Architect, Interdisciplinary Team Leader • Gina Thompson, Recreation Staff Officer • Michael Gabor, Forest Engineer • Joey Keeley, Ecosystems Staff Officer • John Maher, Tribal Relations and Heritage • Quinn Young, Botanist • Shay Zanetti, Wildlife Biologist • Sarah Muskopf, Aquatic Biologist • Craig Oehrli, Hydrologist • Rita Mustatia, Silviculturalist • Nicole Bringholf, Water Rights Specialist • Jenny Hebert, Landscape Architect, Scenery Management
4.2 Federal, State, and Local Agencies
The following list represents organizations that were contacted about this project and/or provided input during the NEPA scoping period:
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency • Nevada Department of Transportation • Nevada Division of Conservation and Natural Resources • Nevada State Historic Preservation Office • Nevada Department of Wildlife • Nevada State Clearinghouse • Incline Village GID • Nevada State Parks • Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Carson Ranger District • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • US Army Corps of Engineers
4.3 Tribal Coordination
• Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 79 Chapter 4: Coordination and Consultation
4.4 Individuals
The following list represents individuals who responded during the NEPA scoping period:
• Kevin Baily • David Clohessy • Steve Dolan • Dave Straley • Mignone Wood • Priscilla Leashy • Max Jones • Steve Odan • Lynn Whetstone • Gail Ferrell • Mary Horsley • Cheryl Lancaster • William Hager • Jim Miller • Norman Henry Biltz Nash • Burr Nash • Priscilla Dodge • Michael D McLaughlin • Robert Macha • Mark Warren • Mimi Nash MacNaughton • Mary McCarty • Patricia Lund • Michelle Buller • William A. O’Brien IV • Matthew McCarty • Sarah Mills Humphries • Timothy W. Mills Jr. • Cheri A. Langham • John F. Nash Jr. • Lisa Williams • Ann Langham • Blake Hinman
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 80 Chapter 4: Coordination and Consultation
• Geoffrey Nash • Dinah O’Brien • Cora McLaughlin • Wylie Martin Lund • Eva Krause • Esther J. Nash Daniel • Genny Wilson • Drew Sibr • Matt Stoecker • Bob Rowen • Dan Dominy • Don Kanare • Nick Rozsnafszky • Andy Wolf • Geno Menchetti • John Gregory • Jim Shepard • James Miller • Kevin Baily • P. Luke Opperman • Doug Ouellette • Clay Grubb • Russ Dahler
4.5 Organizations
The following list represents organizations that were contacted about this project and/or provided input during the NEPA scoping period:
• Snowlands Network • Tahoe Area Mountain Biking Association • Winter Wildlands Alliance • Friends of Incline Trails • Tahoe Area Sierra Club • Tahoe Rim Trail Association • League to Save Lake Tahoe • Nevada Nordic • Sierra Nevada Alliance
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 81 Chapter 4: Coordination and Consultation
• Lake Tahoe News • Tahoe Chamber • North Tahoe Citizens Alliance • The Nature Conservancy
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 82 Appendix A: Hydrology, Soil and Water Protection BMPS
Appendix A: Hydrology, Soil and Water Protection BMPS Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Incline Management Plan Project
Project design features comply with Federal, state, and local requirements and serve as the foundation upon which applicable, site-specific best management practices prescriptions would be developed during the final planning and design phase, and before implementation. The following documents would be used to develop specifications to protect soil and water resources:
• Requirements of the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval (Appendix C – 1). • Guidance provided in USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, FS-990a (USDA April 2012) (Appendix C – 2, Table 1). • Guidance provided in USDA Forest Service Region 5, Water Quality Management Handbook. R5 FSH 2509.22, Chapter 10, Amendment 2509.22-2011-01 (USDA December 2011) (Appendix C – 3, Table 1). The National and Regional guidance documents (USDA 2011, 2012) describe recommended methods (for instance, practices and implementation) to achieve each BMP objective. Although the methods presented in the guidance documents are general and nonprescriptive, they are the basis upon which detailed specifications for on the ground soil and water protection measures would be developed. Table 1 identifies the 15 National and Regional BMPs that apply to the proposed project.
A BMP guidance checklist would be completed during the final stages of project planning that would be used to identify where additional project specifications are needed in design plans, contracts, and permit documents to carry out the methods presented in the National and Regional BMP guidance document. The checklist would be based on the National and Regional BMP guidance and the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval. The checklist is included in Appendix C – 4. Since there is some redundancy between the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval and the USDA BMP guidance documents, the most protective language is identified in Appendix C – 4.
Table 6. Best Management Practices and Objectives in Guidance Documents
National (N) or Regional (R) BMP Title/Objective BMP Guidance document¹ (N) Plan-2 Project Planning and Analysis/Use the project planning, environmental analysis, and decision making processes to incorporate water quality management BMPs into project design and implementation.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 83 Appendix A: Hydrology, Soil and Water Protection BMPS
National (N) or Regional (R) BMP Title/Objective BMP Guidance document¹ (N) Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning/To maintain and improve or restore the condition of land around and adjacent to waterbodies in the context of the environment in which they are located, recognizing their unique value and importance to water quality while implementing land and resource management activities. (N) AqEco-1 Aquatic Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Planning/Reestablish and retain ecological resilience of aquatic ecosystems and associated resources to achieve sustainability and provide a broad range of ecosystem services. (N) AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems/Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in aquatic ecosystems. (N) AqEco-4 Stream Channels and Shorelines/ Design and implement stream channel and lake shoreline projects in a manner that increases the potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. (N) Fac-2 Facility Construction and Stormwater Control/Avoid minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling erosion and managing stormwater discharge originating from ground disturbance during construction of developed sites. (N)Fac-7 Vehicle and Equipment Wash Water/Avoid or minimize contamination of surface water and groundwater by vehicle or equipment wash water that may contain oil, grease, phosphates, soaps, road salts, and other chemicals, suspended solids and invasive species. (N)Rec-2 Developed Recreation Sites/Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources at developed recreation sites by maintaining desired levels of ground cover, limiting soil compaction, and minimizing pollutants entering waterbodies. (N)Rec-4 Motorized and Non-motorized Trails/ Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling soil erosion, erosion of trail surface materials, and water quality problems originating from construction, maintenance, and use of motorized and non-motorized trails. (N)Road-5 Temporary Roads/Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the construction and used of temporary roads. (R)BMP 2.8 Stream Crossings/Minimize water, aquatic, and riparian resource disturbances and related sediment production when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent water crossings. (R) BMP 2.10 Parking and Staging Areas/Construct, install, and maintain an appropriate level of drainage and runoff treatment for parking and staging areas to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources. (N) Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing/ Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resource during equipment refueling and servicing activities. (N)WatUses-4 Water Diversions and Conveyances/ Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, and (R) BMP 2.5 water quality, and riparian resources from construction, operation, and maintenance of water diversion and conveyance structures. (R) BMP 2.5 – Water Source Development and Utilization/To supply water for road construction, maintenance, dust abatement, fire protection and other management activities, while protecting and maintain water quality.
¹ (N ): Guidance provided in USDA Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide, FS-990a (April 2012). (R): Guidance provided in USDA Forest Service Region 5, Water Quality Management Handbook. R5 FSH 2509.22, Chapter 10, Amendment 2509.22-2011-01 (December 2011).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 84 Appendix A: Hydrology, Soil and Water Protection BMPS
There is significant redundancy between the USDA BMP guidance documents, and the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval. The most specific and protective language will be incorporated in project designs and specifications, and stormwater pollution and prevention plans.
Additional project-specific soil and water protection measures beyond the methods identified in the National and Regional BMPs, TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval, include a corresponding USDA BMP identified in parenthesis:
1. Staging areas and other disturbed bare ground will be restored by decompacting and recontouring to surrounding grade, and mulching/seeding per recommendations of the appropriate staff (for example, botanist) – (Fac-2 and BMP 2.10). 2. Review on the ground BMPs prior to a forecasted rain event (using NOAA weather forecast website). Watershed or transportation specialists would review on the ground project BMPs prior to a large forecasted storm event (1 inch in 24 hours rain event, or prolonged periods or rain over a 48 hour period exceeding a total of 2.5 inches) that may exceed BMP capacity and would notify appropriate staff (for example, contract administrator) if additional BMPs are recommended to disconnect runoff from surface water features – (All). 3. To minimize potential turbidity impacts related to work within waterbodies, turbidity monitoring would occur before water is released from the work area. Water would not be reintroduced downstream until permit requirements for turbidity are met – (AqEco 2, BMP 2.10). 4. Temporary roads would be used only if other tools for access are not feasible due to site conditions; however methods to minimize ground disturbance would be deployed – (Road -2). 5. Onsite dust abatement procedures would be implemented on disturbed soil areas and stockpiled soil materials to ensure fine sediments are not transported off site as airborne particles. Abatement procedures could include both watering and physically covering bare soils – (AqEco-2 and Fac-2).
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 85 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan Management Requirements for Invasive Plants of Management Concern
USDA FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT
Table 7: Species Actively Reported, Mapped and Treated on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
2015 Lake Tahoe Known on Lake Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Basin Management Tahoe Basin Scientific Name Common Name Unit Priority Management Unit? Map Treat Acroptilon repens Russian knapweed Medium Yes X X Carduus nutans musk thistle High Yes X X Centaurea diffusa diffuse knapweed High Yes X X Centaurea maculosa spotted knapweed High Yes X X Centaurea solstitialis yellow starthistle Medium Yes X X Centaurea virgata squarrose ssp. squarrosa knapweed High Yes X X Chondrilla juncea rush skeletonweed High Yes X X Cirsium arvense Canada thistle High Yes X X Conium maculatum poison hemlock Low Yes X X Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom Medium Yes X X Hypericum St. Johnswort; perforatum Klamathweed Medium Yes X O Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad High Yes X X Lepidium appelianum hairy whitetop; globe-podded hoary cress Medium Yes X X Lepidium draba whitetop; heart- podded hoary cress Medium Yes X X Lepidium latifolium tall whitetop; perennial pepperweed High Yes X X Leucanthemum oxeye daisy vulgare Low Yes X O Linaria genistifolia Dalmatian toadflax spp. dalmatica High Yes X X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax; butter and eggs High Yes X X Onorpordum Scotch thistle acanthium ssp. acanthium High Yes X X Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil Medium Yes X X Rubus armeniacus Himalaya blackberry Medium Yes X X X = Required, O = Required in project areas and sensitive habitats
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 86 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Table 8: Lower Priority Species Managed on LTBMU but not always Mapped or Treated
Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Common 2015 Lake Tahoe Basin Known on Lake Tahoe Scientific Name Name Management Unit Priority Basin Management Unit? Map Treat Cirsium vulgare bull thistle Low Yes O O Bromus tectorum cheatgrass Low Yes O O Myriophyllum Eurasian spicatum watermilfoil N/A Yes O O X = Required, O = Required in project areas and sensitive habitats. These species are not actively reported, mapped or treated unless they occur within a project area.
Table 9: Species Not Currently Known on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
2015 Lake Tahoe Known on Lake Tahoe Invasive Plant Invasive Plant Basin Management Basin Management Scientific Name Common Name Unit Priority Unit? Map Treat Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Medium No X X Centaurea calcitrapa purple starthistle; red starthistle Low No X X Dittrichia graveolens stinkwort Low No X X Dipsacus fullonum teasel; Fuller’s teasel Low Yes X X Elymus caput-medusae medusahead High No X X Elymus repense quackgrass N/A No X X Hydrilla verticillata hydrilla; waterthyme N/A No X X Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife High No X X Potamogeton crispus curlyleaf pondweed N/A No X X Tamarix chinensis, T. tamarisk; ramosissima, and T. saltcedar parvifolia High No X X X = Required, O = Required in project areas and sensitive habitats. If any of the above species are found, immediately notify the forest botanist. Collect detailed geospatial (GIS) and infestation information.
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: High—Species that have a large ecological impact or invasive potential; species that are easily controlled. Medium—Species that have a moderate ecological impact or invasive potential; species that may be difficult to control. Low—Species that have a low ecological impact or invasive potential; species that require substantial effort to control. N/A—species not evaluated.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 87 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Preferred Invasive Plant Treatment Methods
Table 10: Preferred Treatment Methods for Species Currently Known on LTBMU
Species Common Name Herbicide Herbicide Herbicide— Manual Glyphosate Aminopyralid Chlorsulfuron2 Russian Acroptilon repens knapweed No Preferred No X Bromus tectorum cheatgrass No No No Preferred Carduus nutans musk thistle No X -- Yes No Preferred diffuse Centaurea diffusa knapweed No No No Preferred Centaurea spotted maculosa knapweed No No No Preferred rush Chondrilla juncea skeletonweed No No No Preferred Cirsium arvense Canada thistle No Preferred No No Cirsium vulgare bull thistle No No No Preferred Conium maculatum poison hemlock No No No Preferred Cytisus scoparius Scotch broom No No No Preferred Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort No X No Preferred Isatis tinctoria Dyer’s woad No No No Preferred Lepidium appelianum hairy whitetop X No Preferred X Lepidium draba whitetop X No Preferred X Lepidium perennial latifolium pepperweed X No Preferred No Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy No X No Preferred Dalmatian Linaria dalmatica toadflax X No Preferred X Linaria vulgaris yellow toadflax X No Preferred X Onopordum acanthium Scotch thistle No No No Preferred Potentilla recta sulfur cinquefoil X No No Preferred Rubus Himalayan armeniacus blackberry Preferred No No X 1An ‘X’ indicates an acceptable alternative effective treatment option. 2On Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, use of chlorsulfuron is limited to areas more than 50 feet from perennial water; as such, many infestations are instead treated with glyphosate.
Biennial thistles:
Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)(CIVU); musk thistle (Carduus nutans)(CANU4); scotch thistle (Onorpordum acanthium)(ONAC)
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 88 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
These thistles are tap-rooted biennials and they can be controlled manually, if enough root is removed and no seed is produced. Preferred treatment is manual. Chemical treatment of large infestations can be assessed in consultation with the forest botanist.
Manual (rosette or bolt stage): dig out getting as much of the root as possible and either bag it up or lay it on a rock or log where the roots will not be in contact with the ground.
Manual (bud or flower stage): clip all buds and flowers, bag, and dispose properly. Pull or dig roots out and lay to dry out or bag. Leave as much of the plant behind to minimize landfill space (for instance, stems and leaves).
Chemical: Amminopyralid is preferred for musk and scotch thistle. Chemical treatment of known bull thistle infestations is not approved.
Russian Knapweed (Acroptilon repens)(ACRE3):
This species is difficult to control manually. Chemical treatment is preferred, unless infestation is very small. However, manual treatment should be attempted on newly discovered and small infestations.
Chemical: Amminopryalid is preferred.
Manual (small infestations only): Pull or dig plants; removal of all root and vegetative materials is necessary for effective treatment. Bag and dispose properly. Revisit infestation several times per season. Schedule 5-10 years of follow-up treatment. Revegetation with natives is highly recommended.
Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)(CIAR4):
This plant is rhizomatous and is difficult to control by manual methods. Chemical treatment is preferred, even for small infestations. However, manual treatment should be attempted on newly discovered small infestations. Clipping, mowing, and prescribed burning alone are not recommended as they can stimulate regrowth.
Chemical: Aminopyralid is preferred as a late summer application (bud through late flowering stage) or fall application (regrowth stage) for all infestations, even small infestations.
Manual (EDRR only) (not preferred): clip all buds and flowers, bag, and dispose properly.
Knapweeds:
Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)(CEMA4); diffuse knapweeds (C. diffusa)(CEDI)
These plants can be controlled by repeated pulling or digging and are currently known only from small infestations. Preferred treatment is manual.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 89 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Manual (bolt or rosette stage): Pull or dig up plants getting as much root as possible, expose roots, and leave to decompose.
Manual (bud or flower stage): Pull or dig up plants getting as much root as possible, bag, and dispose properly.
Poison Hemlock (Conium maculatum)(COMA):
These plants can be controlled by repeated manual treatment and are currently known only from small infestations, so preferred treatment is manual. Poison hemlock is poisonous and can cause an allergic reaction; wear gloves during treatment.
Manual: Hand pull, dig, or cut plants. Bag flowers, buds, and seeds and dispose properly; remaining plant material can be left on-site to decompose.
Rush Skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)(CHJU):
These plants can be controlled by repeated manual treatment and are currently known only from small infestations (Tahoe Keys, Old Meyers Grade), so preferred treatment is manual.
Manual: Dig plant, getting as much root as possible, as plants have a very deep taproot. Bag flowers, buds, and seeds and dispose properly; remaining plant material can be left on-site to decompose.
Scotchbroom (Cytisus scoparius)(CYSC4):
These shrubs are currently known only from small infestations; manual and small tool mechanical treatment is preferred. Broom has a high re-sprout potential; therefore, clipping, mowing, and blade-type mechanical treatments are not recommend.
Manual (small plants): dig up or pull plant, removing as much of root system as possible. Plants without fruit may be left to decompose in the field, but any plants with fruit should be bagged and disposed properly.
Mechanical, small-tool (large plants): A weed wrench is the preferred method. The Lake Tahoe Basin Weed Coordinating Group has them on loan. Plants without fruit may be left to decompose in the field, but any plants with fruit should be bagged and disposed properly.
St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)(HYPE):
This species is frequently mistaken for native St. Johnswort (Hypericum scouleri). Confirm identification with trained botanist prior to treatment. This species is rhizomatous and is difficult to control by manual methods. Chemical treatment is preferred, unless infestation is very small. However, manual treatment should be attempted on newly discovered and small infestations. Clipping, mowing, and prescribed burning alone are not recommended as they can stimulate regrowth.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 90 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Chemical: Amminopyralid is preferred as spring application (bud through late flowering stage).
Manual: Pull or dig up plants getting as much root as possible, bag, and dispose properly.
Dyer’s Woad (Isatis tinctoria)(ISTI):
These plants can be controlled by repeated manual treatment and are currently known only from small infestations (Hwy 267, Luther Pass), so preferred treatment is manual.
Manual: Dig or pull plants. Plants without fruit may be left to decompose in the field, but any plants with fruit should be bagged and disposed properly.
Whitetops:
Whitetop (Lepidium draba)(CADR); hairy whitetop (L. appelianum)(CAPU6)
These plants are rhizomatous and difficult to control by manual methods. Chemical treatment is preferred, unless infestation is very small. However, manual treatment should be attempted on newly discovered and small infestations.
Chemical: Chlorsulfuron is preferred.
Manual (small infestations only): Pull and dig up as much root as possible, getting both lateral and vertical roots. Bag any flowers, buds and any roots and dispose properly.
Perennial Pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium)(LELA2):
This plant is rhizomatous and is difficult to control by manual methods. Chemical treatment is preferred, even for very small infestations. However, manual treatment should be attempted on newly discovered infestations. Clipping, mowing, and prescribed burning alone are not recommended as they can stimulate regrowth.
Manual: Dig up plant, removing as much root as possible. If larger, pull plant. If soil is compacted, clip the plant at ground level. Bag any flowers, buds and any roots and dispose properly. Revisit infestation several times per season.
Chemical: Chlorsulfuron is preferred. Secondary preference is for glyphosate. For large infestations, mowing or cutting weeks before chemical treatment to stimulate greater leaf area to absorb herbicide products is recommended.
Ox-eye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)(LEVU):
Preferred treatment method depends on infestation size. Manual treatment is preferred for small infestations. Large infestations require consultation with the forest botanist to develop a treatment plan.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 91 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Manual: Hand pull, bag and dispose properly. Manual control is most effective when done before oxeye daisy flowers and seed is dispersed.
Chemical: Aminopyralid is preferred. For large infestations, mowing or cutting weeks before chemical treatment to stimulate greater leaf area to absorb herbicide products is recommended.
Toadflaxes:
Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)(LIVU2); Dalmatian toadflax (L. dalmatica spp. dalmatica)(LIDAD)
There are very few effective treatment methods for these species; both manual and chemical control methods yield erratic results. Clipping, mowing, and prescribed burning alone are not recommended as they can stimulate regrowth.
Manual (small infestations only): Dig, bag, and dispose properly. Remove lateral roots completely; they can tear and underground portions can survive to grow new plants. Revisit infestation several times per season. Schedule 5-10 years of follow-up treatment. Revegetation with natives is highly recommended.
Chemical: Chlorsulfuron is preferred. Secondary preference is for glyphosate as an early summer application (plants about 3 inches).
Cultural (small infestations only): Flaming is a tertiary consideration for small infestations, but is not feasible for large infestations. Conduct in early summer. Requires consultation with the forest botanist and forest fuels officer (requires an approved burn plan).
Sulfur Cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)(PORE5):
Sulfur cinquefoil is often confused with native cinquefoils. Confirm identification with trained botanist prior to treatment. Preferred treatment method depends on infestation size. Manual treatment is preferred for small infestations. Large infestations require consultation with the forest botanist to develop a treatment plan. Clipping, mowing, and prescribed burning alone are not recommended as they can stimulate regrowth.
Manual: Pull or dig, bag and dispose properly.
Chemical: Aminopyralid is preferred as a spring application (rosette to pre-bud stage), but results are mixed. Follow-up with glyphosate may be required. Leaf and stem hairiness requires use of a surfactant.
Himalayan Blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)(RUAR9):
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 92 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
These plants can be controlled by repeated manual treatment and are currently known only from small infestations (SO), so preferred treatment is manual. Treatment of large infestations will require consultation with the forest botanist.
Manual: Cut stems close to ground, then dig up root ball. Bag all plant materials and dispose properly.
Species Not Currently Known on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit
If any of the following species are found, immediately notify the forest botanist. Collect detailed geospatial (GIS) and infestation information. The following treatment information is provided as rudimentary early detection and rapid response treatment options. Treatment of large infestations will require consultation with the forest botanist.
Medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae)(TACA8):
This species is often confused with the native perennial squirreltail grasses that are found throughout the basin. Confirm identification with trained botanist prior to treatment. Small infestations can be treated manually via pulling or clipping; bag any seeds and dispose properly.
Teasel (Dipsacus fullonum)(DIFU2):
There is only one location know in the basin: off Upper Truckee near the Angora Burn area. Cutting, pulling or digging is effective. Buds and flowers should be bagged but leaves, stems and roots can be left to dry to save landfill space. Seeds viable for 2-4 years, so repeat treatment for several years.
Starthistles:
Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis)(CESO3); purple starthistle (C calcitrapa)(CECA2)
Grub and dig up as much root as possible getting at least 2” below surface, cut and bag flower heads. Revisit infestations at least 3 times per growing seasons. Schedule follow-up treatment for 2-4 years.
Squarrose Knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa)(CESQ):
These form rhizomatous roots and are very difficult to manually control. If small infestation is found, pull and dig up as much root as possible, getting both lateral and vertical roots (at least 8”).
Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)(AIAL):
This species was discovered last summer near the dam in Tahoe City. Dig up young plants getting as much root as possible, any root or plant part left behind can resprout. Infestations must be monitored and treated multiple times within the year.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 93 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens)(DIGR3):
Since its root system is shallow, hoeing or pulling easily removes the plant. Wear protective gloves during treatment, as plant oils are irritating. Plants without flowers can be left on site. Plants with flowers should be bagged and disposed properly.
Hydrilla/waterthyme (Hydrilla verticillata)(HYVE):
Collect a specimen. Currently, on LTMBU, there is no treatment prescribed for these aquatic species, as there are few effective control methods. Management focuses on avoidance and prevention.
Tamarisk/saltcedar (Tamarix chinensis, T. ramosissima, and T. parvifolia):
If found as a young plant, pull or dig up the plant getting as much root as possible. Cutting plants just encourages growth and resprouting.
Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria)(LYSA2):
Hand pull only as seedlings. Do not mow or graze. Chemical control is often effective.
Species Managed on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, But Not Always Treated
Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)(BRTE):
Management outside of project areas focuses on avoidance and prevention. When this species intersects proposed project activities, it is mapped and managed (avoided or treated); recommended management will be project and site-specific.
Manual: Preferred treatment method for small infestations. Pull plants prior to seed set. Plants without flowers can be left on site. Plants with flowers should be bagged and disposed properly. Repeat as new plants appear. May not be feasible for large infestations.
Mechanical: Disk/till live plants in spring (prior to seed set). Repeat as new plants appear. Revegetate with native species. Do not mow; mowed plants can still produce seed. May not be feasible for large infestations.
Cultural (small infestations only): Flaming in late spring-early summer may be considered in consultation with the forest botanist and forest fuels officer (requires an approved burn plan). Not feasible for large infestations.
Manage to avoid spread (large infestations): Use a combinations of the following techniques: 1) flag and completely avoid infestations; 2) lay down barriers over infestations during staging and construction; 3) work in infested areas first, then wash equipment before moving to uninfested areas; and/or 4) use manual or mechanical techniques (above) in staging or construction areas.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 94 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Chemical: Chemical treatment of cheatgrass is not approved.
Aquatic Invasive Plants:
Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum)(MYSP2); curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogetom crispus)(POCR3):
Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit monitors these species and they may be mapped, when they intersect proposed project activities, they may be mapped. In the Lake Tahoe Basin, some agencies are treating infestations by placing bottom barriers over infestations or suctioning plants via divers, which is only effective for small infestations. Currently, on LTMBU, there is no treatment prescribed for these species, as there are few effective control methods. Management focuses on avoidance and prevention.
Summary of All Approved Treatment Methods under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project
Table 11: Manual Treatment Methods
Treatment Description Method Hand Pulling Pulling or uprooting plants can be effective against some shrubs, tree saplings, and herbaceous invasive plants. Annuals and tap-rooted plants are particularly susceptible to control by hand- pulling. It is not as effective against many perennial invasive plants with deep underground stems and roots that are often left behind to re-sprout. The advantages of pulling include its small ecological impact, minimal damage to neighboring plants, and low (or no) cost for equipment or supplies. The key to effective hand-pulling is to remove as much of the root as possible while minimizing soil disturbance. For many species, any root fragments left behind have the potential to re-sprout, and pulling is not effective on plants with deep and/or easily broken roots. Pulling Most plant-pulling tools are designed to grip the plant stem and provide the leverage necessary Using Tools to pull its roots out. Tools vary in their size, weight, and the size of the invasive plant they can extract. Some examples include The Root Talon, which is inexpensive and lightweight, and the Weed Wrench, which is available in a variety of sizes. Both tools can be cumbersome and difficult to carry to remote sites. Both work best on firm ground as opposed to soft, sandy, or muddy substrates. Clipping “Clipping” means to cut or remove seed heads and/or fruiting bodies to prevent germination. This method is labor-intensive and effective for small and spotty infestations. Digging Using hand tools such as shovels and sharp shooters (shovels with a narrow blade). This is the current method for TIPS treatment. Mulching Covering with certified “weed free and plastic free” mulch such as rice straw, grass clippings, wood chips, or newspaper. Tarping Placing tarps (visqueen, geocloth or similar material) to shade out weeds or solarize (to injure by long exposure to heat of the sun) them. Tarping is most effective when the soil is damp (Harris 2009).
Table 12: Mechanical Treatment Methods
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 95 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Treatment Description Method Mowing, Mowing and cutting can reduce seed production and restrict invasive plant growth, especially in cutting, annuals cut before they flower and set seed. Some species, however, re-sprout vigorously brushing, when cut, replacing one or a few stems with many that can quickly flower and set seed. trimming These treatments are used as primary treatments to remove above-ground vegetation in combination with herbicide treatments to prevent re-sprouting, or as follow-up treatments to treat target plants missed by initial herbicide use. Also, mowing and cutting can be used, in conjunction with herbicide treatments, to reduce vegetative materials and to promote vigorous growth in order to decrease the amount of herbicide application needed, and to increase herbicide effectiveness.
Table 13: Herbicide Treatment Methods
Treatment Description Method Applied Herbicides will be applied according to label directions. Herbicide treatments would include use according to of adjuvants such as surfactants and dyes. Adjuvants are materials that facilitate the activity of label directions. herbicides, such as the emulsifying, dispersing, spreading, wetting, or other surface modifying properties of liquids; and dyes assist the applicator in efficiently treating target TIPS and also avoiding contact with herbicide-treated plants by showing which plants have been treated already. Herbicide use must be timed to the growth stage and physiology of the target species. Hand/ Treatment of individual plants using land-based equipment to avoid other non-target plants. Selective There is a low likelihood of drift or delivery of herbicides away from treatment sites, because with these methods there should be no drift. These methods are used in sensitive areas, such as near water, to avoid getting any herbicide on the soil or in the water. Hand/Selective methods could be done under more variable conditions than spot spraying or broadcast spraying (Tu et al., 2001). Specific methods include: Dip and clip – similar to cut stump, where cutting tool is first dipped in concentrated herbicide, then used to cut target TIPS to be treated Hack and Squirt, Cut and Squirt, Cut stump – herbicide is applied to cut surfaces to eliminate or greatly reduce re-sprouts; this is an individual target TIPS treatment Wicking and wiping – herbicide is wiped onto the target TIPS with the wick of the applicator Directed/ Accomplished by land-based backpack sprayer with wand with regulated nozzle so that spray spot spray is concentrated at the target TIPS Limited Hand application with land-based backpack sprayer while wetting more than one target TIPS broadcast spray plant at a time; used for dense occurrences of target TIPS where individual plant application would not be effective.
Table 14: Other Treatment Methods
Treatment Description Method Thermal Thermal methods are based on the systematic increase of plant temperature, reaching diverse thermal death points to eliminate the vegetation. Steaming, flaming, torching, infrared, microwave, and similar methods to be done only when weather conditions permit, such as in a wet season (spring). Equipment for these methods is produced by various companies and may include an open flame. However, flame/fire is not the prerequisite for this method, since temperatures to accomplish cell death are generally 50-70 degrees C (122-158˚ F), significantly below the temperatures attained by some propane burners (for example, 1,900 C - 3452˚ F). Bladders and hand tools such as shovel and Pulaski are required when using this method (see Design Features). This method is especially useful for small plants, plants in the rosette stage, or seedlings. Larger weeds that are removed using other methods often release the seeds in the seed bank to germinate, which results in a flush of seedlings at that location. Thermal treatment would be a possible choice in treating these seedlings. Fuels burning is not part of this project. Thermal would not be used within wilderness.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 96 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
Herbicides Analyzed for Use on LTBMU under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project
Herbicide use on Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit requires a project-specific Pesticide Use Proposal (PUP) (FS-2100-2) and safety plan (FS-6700-7). Herbicides will be applied and monitored in accordance with: a) product label directions; b) Best Management Practices for water quality (USDA Forest Service 2000), c) Forest Service Manual (FSM 2080, 2150 and 2200) and Handbook (FSH 2109.14) direction; and d) design features contained within the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species (TIPS) Treatment Environmental Assessment (listed below).
Table 15: Maximum Application Rate per Herbicide Active Ingredient
Herbicide Active Ingredient Maximum Application Rate (pounds/acre) Aminopyralid 0 .25 lbs (ae) Chlorsulfuron 0.14 lbs/acre (ai) Glyphosate 2.7 lbs/acre (ae) Aminopyralid and Triclopyr premix 0.11 lbs (ae) Aminopyralid + 1.12 lbs (ae) Triclopyr acid
Resource Protection Measures for All Treatment Methods under the 2010 Terrestrial Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project
Special Status (Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, Forest Sensitive, TRPA3 Special Interest, Management Indicator, and Migratory Bird Species) Wildlife and Fisheries
• Where possible, manual weed treatment methods will be utilized within 50 feet of perennial rivers, streams, lakes and other water bodies, including seasonally flooded stream environment zones (SEZs)4. • Chlorsulfuron and Triclopyr will not be applied within 50 feet of perennial rivers, streams, lakes, and other water bodies, including seasonally flooded SEZs. • Only dip and clip, wicking and wiping, or spot applications of Glyphosate or Aminopyralid will be used within a zone between 10 to 50 feet from perennial rivers, streams, lakes, seasonally flooded SEZs, and meadows, including adjacent to occupied Lahontan cutthroat trout and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitats (consistent with Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Standard and Guideline #98). • Only dip and clip and wicking and wiping applications of Aminopyralid or the aquatic formulation of Glyphosate will be used within 10 feet of perennial rivers, streams, lakes, seasonally flooded SEZs, and meadows. • When applying aquatic formulations of herbicides within 50 feet of perennial rivers, streams, lakes and other water bodies, including seasonally flooded SEZs, a surfactant registered by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation for aquatic use will be
3 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 4 Unless otherwise noted, SEZs will be based on the riparian vegetation layer for the Forest, and field checked prior to implementation.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 97 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
utilized. Prior to application, the noxious weed coordinator will consult with an aquatic biologist to select a surfactant. • Herbicide applications will not take place within six hours of predicted rainfall that has a high probability of producing measurable runoff, or as requested by the Aquatics Biologist, and as found in the label directions. Daily spot weather forecasts will be made available to the applicator. • Streams or other surface waters must not be used for washing herbicide application equipment or personnel, unless required in an emergency situation. However, Pesticide Worker Safety Regulations require that water, soap and a towel be available within ¼ mile of field workers and at mixing sites (PRD L30). • Treatment crews will use system road or trail stream crossings when wearing contaminated clothing or carrying herbicide mix, within or upstream of LCT occupied habitat. Mixing of herbicides for application will take place more than 100 feet from perennial rivers, streams, lakes and other water bodies, and outside of SEZs. • The noxious weed coordinator will inform the project or staff biologists for fisheries and wildlife of new infestations before each treatment season, to verify that treatments would not disturb nesting or denning activity of any special status wildlife species. This information will be used to verify that treatments will not impact Lahontan cutthroat trout, yellow- legged frog, or other species habitat or populations. Limited operating periods for all special status wildlife species will be implemented as necessary, based on the most current wildlife data from pre-project field surveys, or habitat suitability as determined by the project biologist. Most vegetation management activities are prohibited during limited operating periods (LOP), unless surveys confirm that nests are uninhabited (SNFPA 2004). • Any incidental sightings of special status fish and wildlife species will be reported to the project or staff biologists. Active nests or dens will be protected according to management direction found in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Plan and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Species identification, known locations, and protection procedures will be discussed during a pre-treatment meeting. • TIPS occur within 0.25 mile of osprey nests designated as Fallen Leaf Lake 04 and South Lake Tahoe 06. Both nests were active in 2008. A limited operating period of March 1 through August 15 applies, unless surveys confirm that osprey are not nesting. Hydrology/Water Quality/Soils
State and Regional Water Quality Control Board certified Best Management Practices will be implemented. BMPs applied to all Forest projects are outlined in the Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, BMP handbook. See Appendix E for BMPs appropriate for this project and references to the associated design features outlined in Section 3.9. Referenced design features provide additional information as to how these BMPs will be applied on this project. Weed infestation size and density criteria will be used to delineate degree of LRWQCB notification and involvement, as below (PRD I5).
• Where infestations are less than one acre in size and rapid action is required to prevent impending seed production, notify LRWQCB with request for “return in 48-hour” response.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 98 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
The LRWQCB will notify the Forest within two days if anything more is needed prior to treatment. If the LRWQCB does not respond, it can be interpreted that the agency does not need anything additional (Bruce Warden, personal communication 3/18/2010). • Where infestation areas are greater than one acre, or are within 25 feet of a water surface, or infestation areas are from ¼ to 1 acre and so do not require rapid consultation for seed production control, full consultation with LRWQCB is required prior to treatment. • Additional specifications regarding buffer zones for herbicide applications adjacent to water are given in the preceding section (Design Features 1 through 8). Rehabilitation of disturbed sites will be accomplished using local native plant species. Areas with greater than 0.1 acre of bare soil created by the treatment of TIPS would be evaluated for rehabilitation and revegetation. Temporary Best Management Practices, such as use of rice grass mulch, will be implemented as needed.
Heritage Resources
Weed treatments will be coordinated with the Forest Heritage Resource specialist to protect resources such as traditional plant gathering areas, rock art, and historic structures in both Nevada and California. In California, soil disturbance will be limited to one cubic meter per acre, without prior authorization from the heritage resources specialist. (R5 Programmatic Agreement for minimum disturbance activities with State Historic Preservation Officer)
Herbicides will not be used to treat TIPS in any Area of Concern or gathering site for the Washoe Tribe without consultation with the Tribe. If weeds become established in the future, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit will consult with the Tribe on suitable treatment methods.
Cultural surveys will be conducted as needed and evaluation will occur on a case by case basis. Existing properties will be considered with each treatment of weeds.
Forest Service Sensitive and Special Interest Plant Species
The project or staff botanist will be consulted prior to chemical treatment of new TIPS occurrences or expanding occurrences, to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive (TEPCS) plant species are not affected.
Only wicking and wiping, dip and clip, and non-chemical treatments may take place within 100 feet of sensitive plants.
Management Areas and Adjacent Non-Forest Areas
If TIPS are discovered in the Grass Lake RNA, approval for treatment will be coordinated with the Pacific Southwest Research Station Director. Refer to FSM 4060.
If herbicide use is proposed to control an infestation of TIPS in any Wilderness Area (Desolation, Granite Chief, Mt. Rose), Regional Forester approval will be sought. Refer to FSM 2320.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 99 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
If national forest property boundary is unclear, then Forest Service personnel will identify property boundary locations before treatment occurs.
Recreation, Special Uses and Recreation Residences
The Recreation Department will be consulted prior to treatment near public developed recreation sites, areas of concentrated public use such as trailheads, and publicly and privately operated water systems and facilities, to reduce conflicts with operational needs. Application of herbicides in recreation areas would ideally occur during the week, and on weekends before Memorial Day or after Labor Day.
For domestic water system sources, chemical applications shall be avoided within areas where movement into drinking water is possible. For surface water and groundwater sources, a buffer of 50 feet is required from the point of diversion.
Prior to herbicide applications within special use permitted areas, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Special Uses will be contacted for any necessary coordination with permit holders.
Health and Safety
Chemicals will be stored in designated storage facilities according to the manufacturer’s labels and consistent with SNFPA standard and guideline #99.
All personal protective equipment (PPE) will be used in accordance with the material safety data sheet (MSDS) and product label for the specific type of chemical being applied during field operations.
Cautionary notice signs regarding herbicide use will be placed at access points to treatment areas prior to initiating treatment. These signs will identify the herbicide(s) to be used, the date of application and date of expiration of the cautionary notice (at least 48 hours after application), name and phone number of forest contact, and phone number for the county health department. They will be removed as soon as possible after the expiration date of the cautionary notice.
Herbicides will only be applied by trained and/or certified applicators in accordance with label instructions and applicable Federal and state pesticide laws. Label instructions include constraints on application under certain wind, temperature, precipitation and other weather conditions to eliminate drift, volatilization, leaching, or runoff.
Any hazardous materials spills will be reported to the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Spill Coordinator and treated in accordance with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Hazardous Materials Response and Spill Safety Plan (PRD L10). If a spill is threatening or has occurred, and requires emergency containment, staff will call 911, and radio or call Camino Dispatch. Dispatch will notify the appropriate agencies according to the Lake Tahoe Geographic Response Plan (September 2007). If material is determined to be of the type that may be
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 100 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan handled by local refuse companies (such as oil and gas), staff will call refuse companies first to see if they are capable of retrieving and disposing. If material is beyond the capability of local refuse companies, staff will call a hazardous waste contractor to arrange retrieval and disposal.
Unused herbicides will be disposed of in accordance with the manufacturer’s label.
Bladder bag and hand tools such as shovel and Pulaski shall be on site when using an open flame to thermally treat TIPS. Although this method does not utilize burning per se, but rather heats to boiling the cells of plants (and not necessarily with an open flame), if any fires result from this treatment, they will be put dead-out before personnel leave the area. Fire-trained personnel will be on site as required.
Herbicides
All appropriate laws and regulations governing the use of pesticides, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, and Forest Service policy pertaining to pesticide use, will be followed.
Coordination with the appropriate county agricultural commissioners will occur, and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to any pesticide application.
All herbicide spray tanks will be equipped with a pressure gauge to ensure that herbicides are applied with low pressure.
For control of drift, all herbicide application will follow EPA approved label directions to control the drift of herbicides during spraying. These directions have specific wind speeds and air temperatures for application of each herbicide. In addition, applicators will utilize droplet size and spray pressure to ensure droplets do not travel outside of the targeted zone.
TIPS
Manual, mechanical, or thermal treatment will be utilized in lieu of chemical treatment where effective.
Any cut TIPS will be disposed of in a manner to preclude spread of propagative parts or contact with soils likely to encourage re-sprouting. Disposal will be as follows: If no flowers or seeds are present, pull the weed and place it on the ground to dry out if species is not rhizomatous or if there is no potential for re-sprouting. If flowers or seeds are present or there is resprouting potential, pull the weed carefully to prevent seeds from falling and to prevent roots from breaking and leaving segments in the ground, and place in an appropriate container for disposal; or separate the flowers and seedheads from the plant if vegetative reproduction is not a concern and dispose of separately as above.
The Forest will continue to inventory and monitor current TIPS populations and use this information to direct activities to reduce the spread and establishment of TIPS.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 101 Appendix B: Invasive Plants Management Plan
All off-road equipment used for weed control efforts will be washed before moving into the project area to ensure that the equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative material, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds of noxious weeds. “Off-road equipment” – in this case, potentially ATVs - does not include vehicles not intended for off-road use. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material, or other such debris.
When working in known weed-infested areas, the equipment will be cleaned before leaving.
Use weed-free mulches and seed sources for revegetation efforts. All activities that require seeding or planting must utilize locally collected native seed sources when possible. Plant and seed material should be collected from or near the project area, from within the same watershed, and at a similar elevation when possible. Seed mixes must be approved by a Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit botanist, noxious weed coordinator, or ecologist.
Staging areas for equipment, materials, or crews will be prohibited within the actual area of TIPS infestations.
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 102 Appendix C: Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects
Appendix C: Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Past Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis
This parcel was only recently acquired by the Forest Service. Previous management activities on the site that occurred while under private ownership included installation of the dam and diversion ditch to create Incline Lake, creation of the Franktown Irrigation Ditch, and the construction of multiple private residences and utilities near Incline Lake.
Present and Ongoing Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis
• Incline Lake Dam Project • Incline Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Considered for Cumulative Effects Analysis
• Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Winter Recreation and Travel Management Project • Lake Tahoe Lahontan cutthroat trout recovery efforts in Third Creek The cumulative effects analysis in this environmental assessment is consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part:
“CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 103 Appendix D: Suitable Uses by Management Area in the Forest Plan
Appendix D: Suitable Uses by Management Area in the Forest Plan The following information is taken directly from Section 2.3.6 Suitable Uses and Management Practices by Management Area of the LTBMU forest plan (2016 Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit LMP Section 2.3.6).
National Forest System lands are generally available for a variety of multiple uses, although not all uses are suitable for all areas. Section 6 (g) of the Resource Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), requires "the identification of the suitability of lands for resource management"(RPA 1974, pp. 4-9).
Suitability is defined as “The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of economic and environmental consequences and the alternative uses forgone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined management practices” (36 CFR 219.3).
Suitability is expressed as suitable, not suitable, or with restriction. Restrictions have several sources depending on the legal, policy or permitting language that applies to the activity.
S – Suitable N – Not Suitable R – Restrictions: • Restricted by law (e.g., Wilderness Act, Desolation Wilderness) • Restricted by designation (e.g., Grass Lake Research Natural Area) • Restricted by Forest Order (e.g., Camping) • Restricted by another decision (e.g., mountain biking on the Pacific Crest Trail) • Restricted by management direction within this plan • Restricted to authorized use only (e.g., communication sites) This section describes common activities and land uses expected to occur on NFS lands within the Lake Tahoe Basin. The general suitability of activities and uses by management area is displayed below (Table 5). Determination of suitable or not suitable does not apply to existing activities and uses. Descriptions of these activities and uses follow the table.
Table 16: Suitable Uses and Management Activities by Management Area (Table 4 on page 81 of forest plan) Suitable Uses or Management Wilderness Backcountry General Urban Santini- Activities Conservation Forest Burton Ecosystem Restoration: Fuels Reduction N S S S S Vegetation Restoration R S S S S Managed Wildfire S S R N S Prescribed Burning R S S S S
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 104 Appendix D: Suitable Uses by Management Area in the Forest Plan
Suitable Uses or Management Wilderness Backcountry General Urban Santini- Activities Conservation Forest Burton Stream Channel Floodplain R S S S S Restoration Soil & Water Restoration R S S S S Species Recovery Habitat R S S S S Restoration Invasive Species Management R S S S S Re-vegetation R S S S S Recreation: Developed Recreation Sites N N S N N Recreation, Non-motorized S S S S S Use Recreation Permitted Uses: Resorts N N S N N Recreation Residences N N S N N Ski Areas N N R N N Ski Slope/Trail N R S N R Organization Camps N N S N N Outfitter and Guide Service R S S S S Non-commercial Group Use N N S N R Infrastructure: Administrative Facilities N N S N N Roads N R S R R Motorized Use of Roads N S S R R Trails S S S R S Motorized Use of Trails N S S N R Mechanized Use of Trails N S S S S Motorized Cross-country N N R N N Travel Over Snow Vehicle Travel N R R N R Other Permitted Uses Communication Sites N N S R R Transportation Related N R S R R Utilities N R S R R Urban Stormwater Treatment N N S S S Community Use and Public N R S R R Information Non-Timber Forest Products N S S S S Production Livestock Grazing N R R N R Research and Monitoring S S S S S Permitted Temporary Activities R R R R R
Incline Management Plan Project Draft Environmental Assessment 105